“4.3”

Hello, I'm hoping someone from the App Review team can look into this situation, which has specific context that I believe makes it worth a careful look. Thank you in advance for your time. I'm hoping someone from the App Review team can look into this situation, which I believe has specific context that makes it worth a careful look. My app YADA: You've Already Met (App ID: 6759586097) has been in Waiting for Review since Wednesday May 6 at 7:44 PM ET - now over 96 hours. I have an open support case (20000112508151) filed Friday with no response yet. I'm not writing simply to flag the wait - I want to explain why this submission deserves a thoughtful second look on the merits. When YADA was submitted for TestFlight beta review, it was flagged under Guideline 4.3(b) for the same reason as the App Store rejection. I appealed, explained the differentiating mechanic, and an Apple reviewer evaluated the argument and approved the app for external testing. That approval is on record. I'm asking for consist

Issue Description We noticed the app shares a similar binary, metadata, and/or concept as apps submitted to the App Store by other developers, with only minor differences. Next Steps Since we do not accept spam apps on the App Store, we encourage you to review the 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 Submitting several similar apps across multiple accounts Learn more about our requirements to prevent spam in guideline 4.3.

My app has been rejected three times under Guideline 4.3(b). I'm seeking guidance from anyone who has navigated a similar situation. The app generates real-time personalized content by combining data from five iOS frameworks — WeatherKit, EventKit, HealthKit, Contacts, and CoreLocation — with an AI API. The generated output directly references the user's actual current weather, actual calendar events, and actual health patterns. No content library exists. Every output is unique. My competitors in this space do not use this method and mine is seriously impressive and can be very beneficial to the user. No other app on the App Store integrates these five frameworks together at content generation time. A 2-minute test confirms this: grant permissions, generate content, and observe your real weather and calendar data in the output. My concern is a process inconsistency. The app was initially reviewed and rejected for four technical issues. Guideline 4.3(b) was not cited. All four issues were res

Hello, My app Tall - App de rencontre (App ID: 6761081326) has been rejected 4 times under Guideline 4.3(b) Design Spam. The App Review Board also upheld the rejection (Appeal Ticket APL411770). I fully understand the dating category is saturated. However, my app has unique mechanical features that do not exist on any other dating app on the App Store: MANDATORY HEIGHT GATE: During registration, women below 1.75m and men below 1.80m are blocked and CANNOT complete registration. This is hard-coded into the onboarding. It is not an optional filter. Users who do not meet the height criteria simply cannot use the app. DOOR-FRAME HEIGHT VERIFICATION: Users must submit a full-body photo standing barefoot under a standard door frame to verify their height. Unverified users see all other profiles blurred. This trust-and-safety mechanism is entirely unique. THE BAKERY: A curated, time-limited daily drop of compatible profiles replacing infinite swipe. This is an anti-swipe paradigm designed to prioritize qual

Hello everyone, I’ve reached out to Apple’s review team multiple times, but unfortunately, I haven’t received any clear or specific guidance on why my app was rejected. My app has been rejected several times with the reason “Spam” under guideline 4.3, and I still don't understand exactly which part of the app is problematic. Even after providing the necessary information about the data, I resubmitted the app, and after a few days, it quickly moved into In Review status, but then was rejected within seconds with the same “Spam” message. I have sent over 13 messages asking for specific feedback, and all I get are vague responses saying “It’s spam, refer to 4.3, fix your app, and resubmit.” However, when I review the guidelines, I don’t see any specific reasons for rejection that apply to my app. I’m particularly confused because my app is a VPN, and when I check the guidelines, I see that apps in categories like dating and others are saturated, but VPN apps are not. My app uses completely dedi

Hello Apple Developer commuinty! We have been developing a VPN client app with unique protocol for quite a while, and now it have come to publishing it in App Store/Google play. I know that publishing a VPN service requires organization(which i cant register because of my life situation), that why i have choosen to make a client. User is NOT necessarily required to use official hosting, theres an option of importing external key. App itself, doesnt contain any hardcoded server credentials and such, but it does have option to get free config from website by click. For some reason, my app review have not gone well. Apple have claimed my app have violated Guidelines 4.3(a) and 5.4. In all of my respect for App Review Team, but claim on Guideline 4.3(a) - Spam is completely ridiculous! App was completely written from the ground, not only including protocol, but the design itself. The MONOGON style, is unique application style which no other app on app store have seen(featuring dotted ASCII style

Hello everyone, I am looking for some advice or shared experiences regarding a prolonged App Review Board appeal process. I submitted my app earlier this month. On March 3rd, it was rejected under guideline 4.3(b) Spam. On the exact same day (March 3rd), I submitted a detailed appeal to the App Review Board. In my appeal, I provided clear documentation and explanations to prove that the app is not a generic template. I specifically highlighted our proprietary algorithm that calculates a unique total daily energy percentage for users, which distinctly separates it from standard, saturated apps in the market. The issue: It has now been 23 days since I submitted the appeal, and I have not received any response from the Board. My main concern is the lack of visibility. Since appeals to the Board do not appear in the Resolution Center UI, I have no way of knowing if my ticket is actually actively open, in a queue, or if it has been lost due to a system glitch. I recently tried reaching out to general supp

Hello, The issues we previously identified still need your attention. If you have any questions, we are here to help. Reply to this message in App Store Connect and let us know. Review Environment Submission ID: f14dec0a-1269-438e-b483-6d806b3d17bf Review date: April 13, 2026 Review Device: iPhone 17 Pro Max Version reviewed: 1.0 Guideline 4.3(a) - Design - Spam Issue Description We noticed the app shares a similar binary, metadata, and/or concept as other apps you already submitted to the App Store, 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 the 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 Cre

Hello App Review Team, I am writing to request further assistance regarding the rejection under Guideline 4.3(a) (Design – Spam). The issue appears to be related to another app that I previously submitted from a different developer account. Unfortunately, I no longer have access to that previous account. I lost my phone, and the SIM card associated with that Apple ID has been permanently blocked. As a result, I am unable to receive verification codes or recover access to the account. I understand the concern about duplicate apps on the App Store and fully respect Apple’s guidelines. To resolve this issue, I would like to request one of the following: Guidance on how I can verify ownership of the previous account so I can take appropriate action (such as removing the older app or restricting storefronts), or Assistance from Apple in removing or disabling the duplicate app associated with my inaccessible account, or Any alternative solution you recommend to comply with Guideline 4.3(a) and pro

My iOS app is getting repeatedly rejected under Guideline 4.3(b) Spam. Apple says the app is astrology / horoscope category, but the app is actually a B2B partner dashboard for verified consultants and contains no horoscope content. We already: Removed astrology keywords Renamed the app Changed metadata Restricted login Removed China region Explained multiple times to App Review Still getting same rejection again and again. Has anyone successfully resolved 4.3(b) spam rejection for astrology / consultation / marketplace apps? What exact change finally worked? Should we appeal? Request call? Change bundle? New app? Different category? Need expert advice urgently.

After months of hard work developing an app with unique mechanics and a distinct user experience, we recently faced a rejection under Guideline 4.3(b) (Spam/Saturated Category). The feedback we received stated that there are already enough of these apps on the App Store. While we completely understand Apple's need to filter out low-quality clones, it feels like this guideline sometimes overlooks genuine originality. The most frustrating part for independent developers is that the category you fall into seems to matter more than the actual value your app provides. Whether the app is positioned in lifestyle, entertainment, or productivity, a rigid category quota can prevent reviewers from truly seeing the unique features we built. This creates a significant hurdle for new entrants and makes it incredibly difficult for fresh ideas to break into established categories. It feels less about the quality of the application and more about timing—as if early arrivers have a permanent advantage over newcomers,