“4.3”

I have an app which is in the app store since 2022. It is an app with combined features of note taking, todo list and calendar. My most recent app update is rejected with the following message. Guideline 4.3(a) - Design - Spam 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. Submitting similar or repackaged apps is a form of spam that creates clutter and makes it difficult for users to discover new apps. Next Steps Since we do not accept spam apps on the App Store, we encourage you to review your app concept and submit a unique app with distinct content and functionality. Resources Some factors that contribute to a spam rejection may include: Submitting an app with the same source code or assets as other apps already submitted to the App Store Creating and submitting multiple similar apps using a repackaged app template Purchasing an app template with problematic code from a third party Submittin

Hi all, My app Kindred: Find Your Match was rejected under Guideline 4.3 (Spam) and I'm struggling to understand what specifically triggered it, as I believe the app offers genuinely unique functionality. Kindred is a dating app built around BaZi (八字) — a 3,000-year-old Chinese metaphysical system. Unlike standard dating apps, every user gets a personalised Four Pillars (四柱命盘) chart calculated from their exact birth date and time. Matching is based on elemental compatibility (Day Master, useful god, ten gods) — not a swipe algorithm or questionnaire. Users can also view a full synastry profile showing how their chart interacts with a match's. What frustrates me is that the App Store has hundreds of generic dating apps that are nearly identical to each other — same swipe mechanic, same profile structure, same matching logic — and they're all approved. Yes, the dating app market is saturated. But if we as developers are willing to put ourselves out there, to fight for our chance, to build something wit

Hi, we submitted our app for review after 1 year of development, and 4 months waiting to finally make payment and enable developer account. After review, app was rejected for 4.3 reason design spam as there are already lots of dating apps in the store reason. We have a unique audience and features (of course also common features like other dating as cannot be avoided chat, some like function etc), and a lof of users were looking forward to our ios version, they are still using the web and ask us every day when they can use ios app. App got rejected and what is unfair is that we can mention at least 5 apps that are total trash in terms of features that do exist in app store same category and are our rivals published without any problem. We submitted after 2 weeks a totally new concept for the app, new menus, animations etc to make it more unique so is not anymore under design spam. Now it was rejected again for same reason and we are out of ideas what to change for the next submission. Our designers a

Hello, I'm a solo developer with three live apps and five new games that were waiting for their first review. I'd like to understand whether an App Review decision on pending apps can influence how a live app is surfaced in the App Store. What happened: Oct 2: 335 impressions / 169 product page views / 68 first-time downloads Oct 3: 222 / 116 / 33 Oct 4: 506 / 243 / 71 Oct 5: 530 / 239 / 72 Oct 6: 163 / 44 / 9 Before Oct 2 the app had roughly 10-50 Browse impressions a day, so it had clearly been picked up by some browse surface. The Page Type breakdown shows most of these impressions as No Page, i.e. the app was shown in lists inside the store, not reached through outside links. On Oct 6 at 02:17 UTC all five of my pending apps received the same rejection in the same minute (Guidelines 4.3 - Spam and 4.2.6). I have answered the questions in the Resolution Center and I am not asking the forum to revisit that decision. On the same day Browse impressions of the live app dropped by about 70% in all majo

Hi everyone, I’m hoping to get advice or hear from anyone with similar experiences. Our app Pixllove was originally rejected under Guideline 4.3 (“Spam”). We were later invited to an App Review call with Erica, who reviewed everything and confirmed verbally and in writing (April 8, 2025) that the spam classification was removed. She acknowledged that our app uses a unique concept and only required us to implement a pre-chat consent popup. We implemented exactly that: • A popup appears before any chat starts, displaying the match’s name, age, and distance. • Users must actively accept before the chat begins. • We show this clearly in our new demo video. • Full reporting/blocking/moderation is in place. However, after submitting the updated build, we were again rejected under a different interpretation of 1.2, with the reasoning that our app “connects users randomly.” This appears to be a misunderstanding, since no match occurred during their test – and it takes at least 2 users online for a match to h

Guideline 4.3 - Design This app duplicates the content and functionality of other apps submitted by you or another developer to the App Store, which is considered a form of spam. Apps that simply duplicate content or functionality create clutter, diminish the overall experience for the end user, and reduce the ability of developers to market their apps. The next submission of this app may require a longer review time, and this app will not be eligible for an expedited review until this issue is resolved. Next Steps Review the Design section of the App Store Review Guidelines. Ensure your app is compliant with all sections of the App Store Review Guidelines and the Terms & Conditions of the Apple Developer Program. Once your app is fully compliant, resubmit your app for review. Submitting apps designed to mislead or harm customers or evade the review process may result in the termination of your Apple Developer Program account. Review the Terms & Conditions of the Apple Developer Program to le

Seeking developer insights regarding a 4.3(a) review response citing similar binary, metadata, and/or concept. Our app implements distinct community-focused features that fundamentally differentiate it from existing applications in this category. Feature Implementation: Our app introduces new technological approaches to faith-based applications: Community System: Custom-built group participation with progress visualization Engagement Features: Peer support system with achievement tracking Progress Metrics: Proprietary points system for progress tracking Group Progress Features: Shared accomplishment tracking Achievement Architecture: Progress continuity tracking Performance metrics accumulation Custom recognition system for personal and group milestones Synchronized goal-setting framework Market Analysis: Our research indicates: No existing apps with group-based progress features No solutions combining community features with scheduling No applications with similar group achievement systems No platfo

I am seeking guidance after experiencing what appears to be an inconsistent and unresponsive review process. My app was rejected under Guideline 4.3(b) (Spam - saturated category) and Guideline 2.1 (App Completeness - IAP not found in binary). I would like to highlight several concerns: Regarding 2.1 - IAP Issue: The rejection states that In-App Purchase products could not be found in the submitted binary. However, a previous reviewer successfully accessed and screenshotted the exact purchase screen in an earlier review cycle. The IAP is clearly implemented and functional. This inconsistency suggests the current reviewer may not have thoroughly tested the app. Regarding 4.3(b) - Spam: I have submitted detailed appeal notes explaining the unique, differentiating features of my app that are not found in any competing applications in this category. These include: Integration with real-time external data sources (not static content) Cultural and regional elements unique to my market AI-powered c