Good that you mention it. I will add contact details. It has been a while so I don't remember the exact wording. I wouldn't use the same wording since it is not a petition and doesn't add value. They want to research if it is an unfair practice. In my opinion banking and wireless payments is a common good. Having two companies, who only approve software of partners, most of them including unremovable spyware, is limiting on access to banking and privacy (although privacy is another department). I mentioned security since that is Google's argument for the block even though GrapheneOS is more secure than approved builds. I gave the number of GrapheneOS users to make clear it doesn't affect only a few individuals. I think LineageOS users might also be affected?

It shouldn't work like a petition, but these organisations do treat it as such unless something is very obviously a major violation. Even with numbers of Graphene users, what part of that is Dutch? What part of that wants to use Google Pay? What part makes use of a workaround? Multiple reports of problems does give some information/signal that this is worth their time

But yes, as said I'd not use the same wording because it shouldn't just be a copy-paste, that's also wasting their time. I could refer to what was already submitted so they can more easily bundle them, but I understand you don't have it anymore so np. Thanks for mentioning you've submitted this in the first place and the additional info, that does motivate me to continue also submitting things and to know better what makes sense to submit :)