3.2(f) triggered — account pending termination despite repeated attempts to comply

a long review process with many resubmissions

The word 'many' doesn't convey the exact number to others.

Can repeated resubmissions / iterative changes alone be interpreted as “evasion” under 3.2(f)?

It depends on what you have done, and nobody but people from Apple, Inc. knows it. You have been told that you have some questionable, overly sexual content. Suppose that that you have covered a sexually-revealing person with a see-through material. You've been warned 5 times. And each time you increase its opacity from 10% to 11%, 12%, 13%... If you do it many times without entirely getting rid of this person, I would definitely flag it for evasion.

Thanks for the response, for context it was around 15 submissions over a few months and 30ish messages.

I get your example, but I think my situation’s a bit different. The updates weren’t just micro changes trying to slip something through, there was a mix of both small tweaks and broader changes. The issue was the feedback stayed very generic (“overtly sexual”) without pointing to specific elements, so each update was essentially a best guess at what might be triggering it. Especially early on, when only metadata was flagged, I assumed the issue was relatively minor.

By the end, I actually went in the opposite direction of evasion & submitted a build with everything unlocked and included screenshots showing all content upfront, so review had full visibility, as requested during a phone call. It’s possible I missed a couple of screenshots in earlier messages, but nothing was intentional.

That’s why the 3.2(f) decision caught me off guard, there was no intent to hide or mislead, just trying to interpret vague feedback and get the app into a compliant state.

I also had a call with a policy expert hoping to get more specific guidance, but the feedback remained high-level (“a bit too inappropriate for the App Store”) without pointing to any specific elements.

I made further changes after that call based on my interpretation, so receiving another generic response afterwards was disappointing. The fact I actively sought clarification and continued updating the app shows I wasn’t trying to evade anything, I was trying to understand the requirements and bring it into compliance.

I also have a full history of communication and development changes (including work with a programmer) that reflect genuine attempts to comply, although I wasn’t able to include supporting materials in the appeal.

The issue was the feedback stayed very generic (“overtly sexual”) without pointing to specific elements

They only tell you how you violate review guidelines. They won't tell you how you should make changes so that you will pass the review process. It's been like that for the past 15 years or longer. We only pay $99 annually. So it shouldn't be a surprise. If you need to find out how you should make changes, I'm afraid you need to hire a consultant.

They only tell you how you violate review guidelines. They won't tell you how you should make changes so that you will pass the review process. It's been like that for the past 15 years or longer. We only pay $99 annually. So it shouldn't be a surprise. If you need to find out how you should make changes, I'm afraid you need to hire a consultant.

I get that they won’t provide step-by-step instructions, but pointing out specific elements that are considered non-compliant would benefit both sides.

When the feedback is just “overtly sexual,” it’s hard to know what that actually refers to, whether it’s the imagery, VO, copy, or even the character relationships.

Since only Apple knows where they draw that line, having more specific guidance would significantly reduce the number of resubmissions and make the process more efficient for all. As well as prevent good intentioned developers from having their accounts terminated.

An Apple person occasionally mentions a sit-down review session. Probably, that's what you want. I don't remember the exact session title, though.