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 with our partners
- Copies/links to partner licenses
Given that context, a 4.3(a) outcome is confusing. We don’t publish template/duplicate apps, and we’re not keyword-stuffing metadata. The reviewer who requested legal docs appeared to be actively testing, but the final 4.3(a) decision didn’t include clarifying notes.
We’re very concerned about this situation and would truly appreciate your advice on how to move forward.