Search results for

4.3

585 results found

Post

Replies

Boosts

Views

Activity

An already live app for 3+ years suddenly gets 'Design Spam, item 4.3' rejection !!!
Hi, We have an app live on the App Store since August 2020. We have made some 50+ updates on the app with minor & major changes throughout these 3+ years. A few months ago we submitted an update as usual with some minor changes and a new feature but got 'Design Spam, 4.3' rejection saying: We noticed your app shares a similar binary, metadata, and/or concept as apps submitted to the App Store by other developers, with only minor differences. 1st question, how does an app that has been doing the same things for 3+ years suddenly gets 'Design Spam' ???? Then we sent a message to App Review with some screenshots of our app's update history taken from App Store Connect console and a message stating the same question as above. We got a reply: Hello, Thank you for your reply. During our review, we found that this app duplicates the content and functionality and icon of other apps submitted to the App Store, which is considered a form of spam and is not appropriate for the App Store. Now they mentioned
1
0
1.3k
Dec ’23
Appeal Account Termination – App ID 6744330283 (Spam 4.3 Misunderstanding)
Hello Apple Developer Support & Community, I’m reaching out regarding the unexpected termination of my Apple Developer Program account, associated with App ID: 6744330283. Recently, my app was flagged under Guideline 4.3 - Spam, and I was asked to make necessary changes. I followed all guidance provided by Apple, including a phone call with an App Review team member, who clarified the steps I should take. I did not submit any further update after that call. However, before I had the chance to upload the new, compliant version of my app, my entire developer account was terminated without a clear explanation or additional warning. I believe this was a misunderstanding, as I was actively working on compliance and fully committed to resolving the issue. My app is not spam I only followed Apple’s instructions I never uploaded a new version after my call with App Review No specific violation or example of “spam” was shown to me I’ve submitted an official appeal via the App Review Board, but I’m hoping
1
0
313
Jul ’25
Reply to 4.3 Design Spam (Suggestion for Apple)
Here we go again! A bigger company copied some of my ideas from my android app since apple is still rejecting. The redesinged it a little bit to fit 4.3 Design: Spam and got approved a couple of weeks ago. Bad enough.. so I redesinged my App the same way and resubmitted it. And guess what.. Still rejected because of 4.3 Design: Spam. THIS IS UNFAIR TREATMENT! THIS IS FU*CKING NOT OKAY! I am so mad right now. I have a meeting with a lawyer tomorrow. You should do the same!
Sep ’23
Seeking Help: App Rejected Under Guideline 4.3 - Alleged Similarity with Terminated Account
Hello everyone, I am seeking advice regarding a recurring issue with our app, YouMi UM, which was rejected due to alleged spam under App Review Guideline 4.3(a). The review team stated that our app shares a similar binary, metadata, and/or concept with apps previously submitted by a terminated Apple Developer Program account. Our app, YouMi UM, has been successfully launched on the Android platform, and we have invested significant effort into its UI design and features. However, when submitting to Apple, the review team pointed out similarities between our app and others submitted by different developers, particularly in terms of binary files, metadata, and concept, which led them to believe it might violate Guideline 4.3. Our app is independently developed, with all code and design being original. We have also added several unique features, such as real-time news widgets, branded dynamic toast notifications, and exclusive scene transition animations, which are not commonly found in similar
1
0
247
Jan ’25
App Rejected for 4.3 Spam Without Proper Review – Need Clarification
Hello everyone, I’m reaching out to seek advice and support regarding a confusing issue I’m experiencing with my app’s review process. App ID: 6744330283 Here’s the situation: Versions 1.0 and 1.1 of my app were approved and successfully published on the App Store. However, updates 1.2 and 2.0 have both been rejected for Guideline 4.3 – Spam. The rejection happens extremely fast – less than 10 seconds after the app goes “In Review”, it gets rejected. There is no indication that the reviewer even launched the app. This is very frustrating because: The app has real user reviews, In-App Purchases, and active paying users. My app is 100% original – it is not a copy or template-based app. Even worse, the review process for versions 1.2 and 2.0 took over 7 days before even starting, and then they were rejected instantly, again without being opened. I’m happy to cooperate and improve my app further, but I feel like this may be a misunderstanding or a mistaken flag by an automated process. Has anyone experie
2
0
148
Jun ’25
Doubt about rejection under Guideline 4.3(b) - Design - Spam
Hello everyone, I'm looking for guidance on a situation that has been quite frustrating for me. I've developed an AI-powered Tarot app that offers an innovative and enhanced experience. Its features include: 3 different tarot decks 70 tarot spreads AI-based personalized interpretations Extensive customization options The app has been successfully published on Android (You can search Tarot AI 3D in the android store) and has received positive feedback from users. Many have contacted me asking for an iOS version, so I decided to rebuild it in Unity with an improved approach, ensuring it meets quality and uniqueness standards. This new version has already been approved on Android. However, after several attempts, Apple has repeatedly rejected it under Guideline 4.3(b) - Design - Spam. I carefully reviewed the guidelines and put all my effort into creating a unique, high-quality experience. I have submitted two appeals (one 15 days ago and another about 5 days ago), but I have not received any response.
1
0
174
Mar ’25
Struggling With Guideline 4.3(b) Rejections – Would Love Dev Insight
Hey everyone, We recently submitted our new dating app, Rove Dating, and it’s been rejected under Guideline 4.3(b) — “Design: Spam.” I’d really appreciate your insights, especially from anyone who’s faced something similar or has experience getting nuanced apps approved in a saturated category. Before building Rove, we spoke to dozens of users of existing dating platforms. We consistently heard the same thing: people are deeply dissatisfied with current apps. They’re overwhelmed, burned out by swiping, and frustrated by endless choices and low-quality interactions. It became clear that the problem isn’t that there are “too many” dating apps — it’s that most aren’t adapting to how people actually want to date in 2025. We designed Rove to address those pain points head-on, with a totally different approach to matching, message limits, and emotional safety. We believe our app meaningfully improves the dating experience — but we’re having trouble getting that across in the review process. Below is the ex
3
0
170
Jun ’25
Reply to 4.3 Design Guidelines - Apple please reconsider how this is enforced.
We did this as well. We removed all but one app in our series, submitted it and it was rejected for 4.3.In our case, we had initially consolidated our series into a container. We removed everything but the container and sold it for one month. The sales as expected were horrible because the marketing suffers terribly and the app icon is super-generic. We've been selling for years and know roughly what to expect for any given week in the app store. The container sold far worse than our series of apps individually. The sales of the container were also worse than our top selling app by itself. So, we decided to discontinue the container and sell only our top seller. This where we are now -- rejected for 4.3 design spam with no other apps like it in the store.We've only received the 4.3 templated response in the resolution center. Last week we had call with the App Store. We had the impression from the call that this course of action was OK (though they wouldn't say definitively), so we
Apr ’18