a
I am submitting this appeal because we believe our app was misunderstood and the review outcome and follow-up communication have been unfair and mechanically handled.
1) What happened / Outcome we disagree with
Our submission was rejected under Guideline 4.8 – Design – Login Services, with the reviewer stating that our app uses a third-party login service but does not provide an equivalent login option that meets Apple’s requirements (limited data collection, private email option, no advertising tracking without consent). However, our game does not require or force any third-party login. The feature being treated as “login” is not a login service at all—it is Mainland China real-name / anti-addiction compliance verification.
2) Why we believe we comply with the App Review Guidelines
A. The feature in question is compliance verification, not login
Players do not need to create or log into any in-game account to play. The flow exists solely to satisfy Mainland China real-name/anti-addiction compliance requirements. Verification can be completed by either: Using TapTap only as a real-name verification authorization option, or Manually entering a Chinese ID number + legal name to pass verification and play. Because this is verification, not an account login, Guideline 4.8 “Login Services” should not apply in the way the rejection message assumes.
B. There is no “playable account” to provide
After we clarified the above, we continued to receive repeated, template-like requests to provide a “playable account.” This request does not match our product design: there is no account system required for gameplay, so there is no “review account” to provide. We have already provided the information needed to complete the verification path (ID + name for the compliance flow), yet the responses remained repetitive and did not reflect that the reviewer checked our explanation.
3) Why we believe the handling was unfair
Even after clearly explaining that this is not a login system, the review communication continued with mechanical responses that did not address the clarification. This caused significant delays to our release timeline and appears to be unfair treatment compared with many existing App Store apps that use similar compliance verification flows. 4) What we are requesting from the Appeals Team Please investigate and correct the misclassification of our real-name compliance verification as a “login service” under Guideline 4.8. If the team still believes Guideline 4.8 applies, please provide: The specific guideline rationale, and The exact screen/step in our app that is being interpreted as “login.” Please advise what specific materials you need to proceed efficiently (e.g., screen recording of the verification flow, step-by-step review instructions, configuration notes). We are ready to provide them immediately.