“4.3”

My game has been live since 2018 and I’ve been updating it recently to add some improvements because it’s been a few years (last update was 2020). I got hit with a couple of basic issues with the screenshots but I was told I can release that version anyway and fix it in a later update. I spent yesterday fixing those issues because they were minor, and resubmitted my app to review. This morning I was hit with another rejection for a new issue, 4.3(b) Design Spam. The reason being it’s a game in a saturated category (Beer Pong) and so I should reconsider the app concept. This game has been live for 7 years. In those 7 years the category may have become saturated, but it wasn’t when I originally released it, so stopping me from updating it feels extremely unfair. If this was a brand new app I would still be upset but I would understand. Another reason was that it’s based on a drinking game, and that it encourages people to drink alcohol. I stated in the age rating section that it heavily contains alcoho

Hi everyone, I'm reaching out to this community for advice and hoping to get some insights from anyone who has faced similar issues. Our social casino app has been rejected twice under Guideline 4.3 (Spam), and we're struggling to understand the specific reasons. App Details App ID: 6753935757 Submission ID: fbb70e69-c91f-49fd-82d7-43c02bbdca4e Category: Social Casino Game (Slots) Our team has been developing social casino games for 7 years. We've had both successful launches and products that didn't work out - we understand this market well. For this new product, we conducted extensive market research and identified a specific gap: modern, high-impact themed slots targeting young male players.focused on modern male-oriented content including sports, beast taming, competitive gaming, and other high-energy themes. We created specifically for these intense, modern themes - not reused from previous projects. Yes, we did reuse some foundational technical components like:RNG algorithms, basic framework st

Title: Mistaken 4.3(a) “Spam/Copycat” Flag → 3.2(f) Termination — Seeking Guidance on Reinstatement Hi everyone, I’m an independent developer and I believe my account was escalated to termination because of a misunderstanding around Guideline 4.3(a) – Design – Spam and 4.1 – Design – Copycats. I want to explain the full timeline so I can get advice on how to present this correctly in the “Re-instate a terminated membership” request. 1. What I submitted I submitted an app called “Anime Jigsaw: Waifu Puzzles.” The idea was simple: it’s a jigsaw puzzle app, but I wanted to make it more relaxing by combining anime/waifu themed puzzle images with built-in lo‑fi music. So the concept I was aiming for was: puzzle + themed art + calming music, not just another generic jigsaw clone. 2. First rejection Apple rejected it under 4.3(a) – Design – Spam and also mentioned 4.1 – Copycats. The exact wording in App Store Connect said my app’s binary, metadata and/or concept was similar to apps that w

Hi everyone, I’m looking for clarification regarding App Store Review Guideline 4.3 (Spam) and how it applies to unlisted apps. The guideline mentions that “Apps that are duplicates of others, or that spam the App Store with similar content, may be removed from the App Store or from the Apple Developer Program.” In my case, I’m considering distributing several unlisted apps that share a similar codebase but are customized for different clients (for example, with distinct branding and configurations). These apps would not be searchable or publicly listed on the App Store — they would only be accessible through direct links. Could anyone confirm whether Guideline 4.3 still applies to unlisted apps in the same way it does to publicly listed apps? If not, what is the recommended approach for distributing such client-specific builds while remaining compliant with Apple’s policies? Thanks in advance for any clarification.

Hello everyone, I am the developer of a small app studio that has been creating and publishing apps on the App Store since 2017. Our main app recently reached the Top 5 in the Lifestyle category, serving thousands of paying subscribers and gaining around 15,000 new downloads per day until it was suddenly removed from the App Store along with our other apps. On October 11, 2025, I received a Pending Account Termination Notice for my main developer account. A few months earlier, on August 15, 2025, another account registered under my name had also received a pending termination related to Guideline 4.3(b) for a duplicate binary submission. That app was never live on the App Store. Once I realized the issue, I rejected the binary myself and stopped all activity on that account. I believe both accounts became linked because the same Apple ID and bank information were briefly used during setup. This may have caused Apple to associate the two accounts. Both accounts are fully verified legal entities. Since

My app Siply keeps getting flagged for Guideline 4.3(a) – Spam, saying it’s “similar in binary, metadata, or concept” to other apps on the App Store. I’ve already had a call with App Review and made a ton of changes since then, obviously they won't tell me what app they think it's emulating, which doesn't really help me as a dev. I've redone both design and function, but it’s still getting rejected for the same thing. Just for context, Siply isn’t a template or copy app. It’s built from scratch with a Create ML model for container volume estimation, a custom Figma UI, and a Firebase backend for login and data. The whole interface and flow are fully custom-built. I’m just trying to figure out what part of it is being seen as “too similar” so I can fix it the right way. Could this be triggered by me having other apps under the same developer account or Firebase project? Any insight would help, I’m kinda stuck on this one.

Hi everyone, I’m currently working on a project based on the Telegram iOS open-source code. My goal is to build an unofficial Telegram client with Telegram’s permission (they have publicly allowed third-party clients under their open-source license). My app includes unique new features and UI improvements that are not present in the official Telegram app. Essentially, it’s Telegram plus additional features — built from the official source, but extended significantly. However, when I try to submit my app to the App Store, Apple rejects the build under Guideline 4.3(a) - Design - Spam with this message: “We still 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.” I completely understand Apple’s intent to prevent low-effort clones or spam apps. However, in my case, this is

Hello everyone, We are currently facing a frustrating situation: we are trying to publish an app that enables VPN connection with our platform, which is offered exclusively to our clients. However, our app is being repeatedly rejected under Guideline 4.3(a) - Design - Spam. To clarify, this VPN app is strictly for enterprise use and only operates in specifically provisioned environments. It is not a generic VPN client and cannot function outside of its intended context. Authorship: The entire codebase is original and exclusive. The only third-party dependencies are: WireGuardKit: used for establishing the VPN tunnel (WireGuard protocol). ZIPFoundation: used for compression and decompression of packages. Uniqueness: No other VPN app on the market works with our solution. The only thing in common with some is the use of the WireGuard protocol. Our app includes an agent that reports device information to our platform for security policy evaluation and access control. It uses entirely proprietary authent

Hi. My friend and I are new to app developing. We made an app together and I made one alone on the side. But we are not joined. we each pay seperate taxes and not some scam design post of apps. Apple flagged both with spam design, so we assumed it was related. but not sure anymore. app1 is a travel related app operating globally. we have IAP but also destination inspiration and global food information, which is free in the app. app2 is about one single country and has a lot of information about travelling in that country and some IAP too. IAP in both apps are the same product, but unique in appstore. it only exists on websites apart from these two apps. both are made in adalo so even though the colours are different they are made in the same system. In app1 IAP is the main product, in app2 its not. we have tried so much to get app1 through but they keep rejecting with spam design. After a while they suddenly approved app2, after renaming it, changing colours and highlighting the information about the country

Hi everyone, We’re a U.S.-registered company and just submitted our primary app for review. We tried to be proactive: our initial submission included very detailed Notes to the Reviewer to avoid back-and-forth. Despite that, our first rejection asked for items we had already covered in Notes. Within ~30 minutes we replied in the Resolution Center with expanded details. The app went back to review and about 90% of the concerns were resolved. After that, we could see from our logs that the reviewer actively tested the app and requested additional legal documentation. We provided everything promptly, but the next response was a rejection under Guideline 4.3(a) – Design – Spam. There was no additional explanation tying 4.3(a) to anything specific in our binary or metadata, and this guideline hasn’t come up for us before. Here’s what we already provided via the Resolution Center: Test credentials and clear steps to access all app areas Detailed terms and in-app disclosures Executed agreements wit

Hello, I am a solo game developer with four years of experience, and I have recently decided to publish my games on the Apple App Store to bring a fresh vibe and address some issues I noticed in my game genre. I create games from scratch, often combining two genres to create unique experiences. One example is my electric car driving simulator, which includes unique systems like temperature-affected battery range, dynamic weather, a battery company management feature, police escape missions, and more. (Electric car games are not very common on the App Store, and mine stands out with these innovative features.) However, I’ve been facing issues when trying to publish my games. Since I began submitting my games, I’ve received repeated 4.3 Design Spam rejections. Whenever I request concrete feedback to understand the reasons behind these rejections, I consistently get the same general response about binary data, metadata, or game concepts. Recently, I was notified that my account is going to be suspended

Hi everyone, I would like to ask for help how should I resolve the issue with app submission for Guideline 4.3(a) - Design - Spam. I will explain my case to you. I assigned a task to junior engineer to submit an app from a personal developer account because my organization account has not been available yet. I thought I could be transfer later or resubmit under different bundle id and account would be okay. yes, it was my fault . But the app review process was taking too long in the personal account and I told him to cancel and delete the app submission, thinking that there might be not issue since the app was not released in AppStore. After I submitted the updated version of app with organization account, it doesn't get approve and getting 4.3.0 Spam rejection. We have taken about 6 months of work putting all the efforts both in the technical and business side on the product from scratch. We are about to launch in next week and our app is got rejected. I don't know what to do. I've all the authority

Hello everyone, I'm seeking some advice and perspective from the community regarding an appeal I've submitted to the App Review Board. My app, (App ID: 6748638280), was recently rejected under Guideline 4.3 - Spam. We believe this was a misunderstanding, as our app is a highly specialized academic tool for the study of Qimen Dunjia (奇門遁甲), a complex form of ancient Chinese metaphysics. It is a professional calculation engine, not a generic fortune-telling app. We submitted a detailed appeal to the App Review Board two weeks ago, explaining the unique, academic nature of our app and providing a link to a demo video that showcases its innovative features (like its real-world compass integration and its unique data visualization system). As of today, we have not yet received a response. I completely understand that the review process takes time, and I want to be respectful of the board's workload. However, I'm starting to wonder if this length of time without a reply is normal for an appeal. I would be