App rejected 4 times under 2.5.2 despite detailed clarifications - need guidance

Question

Created 8h

Replies 1

Boosts 0

Participants 2

Hi all,

We've been rejected four times under Guideline 2.5.2 with identical responses, despite providing detailed clarifications each time. Hoping someone here has dealt with a similar situation.

What our app is:

A B2B SaaS companion app for our platform (Setgreet). Our customers — product managers and designers — create in-app engagement content (onboarding flows, feature announcements, surveys) on our web dashboard. This companion app lets their teammates and stakeholders view that content on a real device for review and approval before it goes live in the customer's own app via our SDK.

The content is structured UI data (text, images, buttons, layout) fetched from our REST API. No executable code, no app binaries, no runtime interpretation, no app distribution.

The rejection (verbatim, repeated 4 times):

The app appears to be designed for clients or users to preview apps prior to being submitted to the App Store for review. This type of design allows you to change the app's behavior or functionality to differ from the intended and advertised primary purpose of the app, which is not in compliance with App Review Guideline 2.5.2 and section 3.3.2…

What we've tried:

Detailed written replies explaining the app is a content viewer, not an app preview tool
Comparisons to approved App Store apps that work the same way (Figma Mirror, InVision, Braze, Notion — all render remotely-created content via shared links/codes)
Filed an App Review Board appeal (waiting for response)
Requested a 30-min App Review video call — declined by Apple

Each reply gets the exact same rejection text back, with no engagement on our explanations.

My questions:

Has anyone successfully resolved a 2.5.2 rejection where the reviewer pattern-matched a content viewer as an "app preview tool"?
Is the QR-code-to-view-content interaction the likely trigger? Should we de-emphasize it in favor of a login + flow list as the primary UX?
Any advice on getting a senior reviewer to actually engage with the explanation vs. copy-pasting the same response?

Submission ID: 2f079345-04df-4701-8089-5e55e982f99a

Any insights appreciated. Happy to provide more detail.

Thanks!

Boost

Answer 1

Tomato OP

1h

Filed an App Review Board appeal (waiting for response)

The Appeal Board often sides with the reviewer unless the latter has made a totally wrong call. Also, the Appeal Board can make a mistake. If they rule against you, that may be the end of your app submission. So that's probably a wrong path to take.

If I were you, I would look for an app under similar circumstances at the App Store. Instead of saying to them "Hey, there already exists an app under the same circumstances. Why is it okay for them but it's not for us?," I would rather download and examine it to see their secret.

Amazon, Inc. has a subsidiary (Amazon Mobile LLC ) that develops their mobile apps. Although one can make purchases at their store, the App Store still allows their app(s). There must be some features that are not available through the web browser.

0