site:mql5.com Get in touch with developers using Service Desk

New comment
 
Sharing my recent experience with Service Desk for the record.

In May 2026 my product was removed from the Market for 
"similarities to another product." I filed three separate 
Service Desk tickets:

Ticket 1: Submitted technical evidence (original code, unique 
features, different architecture). Closed without review of 
the evidence.

Ticket 2: Resubmitted the appeal with parameter-by-parameter 
comparison showing the differences between my product and the 
one I was accused of copying. Reply addressed only the 
description, not the code. I offered to rewrite the description 
fully. Offer ignored.

Ticket 3: Requested arbitration after I observed that the same 
Support Team, eight days later, defended a different product 
against a nearly identical plagiarism claim using the opposite 
criteria — stating that "common input names and a few same 
values are not enough to remove a product for plagiarism."

I asked the Support Team a direct question: if that standard 
applies, why was my product removed for the same kind of 
overlap? The ticket was closed without answering.

My question to this thread is procedural, not about any 
specific product:

Is there a formal escalation path when a Service Desk ticket 
is closed without addressing a direct logical contradiction in 
the Support Team's own replies, within the same week?

I have offered to rewrite my description fully under any 
guideline. I am only asking for one consistent standard 
applied to all sellers.
 

I'm sorry you had such an experience. It's really painful that you can't make a program that you worked so hard to program public.

However, I need to explain that according to the MQL5 marketplace rules, it is clearly written that the admin can delete a program or not allow it to be published, even without any explanation. This approach may seem strict, but when it comes to legal rules and dealings with thousands of thousands of developers, maintaining a strict framework is necessary to avoid more complex problems.

Of course, I agree that the service can be a little softer and get out of this difficulty, but in practice, managing such a market with a huge volume of similar products and claims is a difficult task.

However my suggestion to you is that instead of following the same path again, try to create a different tool with fundamental changes to the Expert Advisor/tool such as strategy, inputs, structure or even name and description and then apply for publication again.

This method may take time, but it increases your chances of success.

regards

New comment