Posting because I have run out of changes to make and Apple is still hitting me with the same guideline.
I run Bot Binder (App Store ID 6771506484), a fan-built collection-tracking app for action-figure collectors. No Hasbro license. No trademarked wordmark in the app name or icon. One developer, paid account, side project.
Three 4.1(a) Copycats rejections in six days.
May 30, vc109 rejected. Subtitle "Transformers Collection Hub" and keywords led with "transformers." Acknowledged. I rewrote the subtitle, scrubbed the keywords, shipped vc114 with a Hasbro attribution disclaimer modeled on Dex and Yugipedia, plus a Resolution Center reply citing 15 live App Store comparables.
June 1, vc114 rejected. Same guideline. Flagged screenshot was the dashboard hero, which still rendered marketing text and a Hasbro figure in the featured spot. Acknowledged. I gated every brand-bearing UI surface behind an iOS check, swapped the iOS feature pool to third-party and upgrade-kit figures only, replaced the original mascot in both the iOS app icon and the in-app head graphic with a new abstract design, regenerated the splash, and shipped vc132. The mascot replacement was a real concession. That mascot is the visual identity of the brand on web and Android. I changed it on iOS specifically because the reviewer signaled the icon area was in scope.
June 4, vc132 submitted with full scorched-earth metadata. Description rewritten end to end, zero third-party brand/character/trademark references anywhere (verifiable in the live appStoreReviewDetail record). Promotional text and keywords generic. Screenshots reshot from the gated iOS build with no franchise overlays or characters in hero positions. In-app disclaimer footer on every iOS screen. Public support page hosts the same disclaimer. Age rating bumped 4+ to 12+.
June 5, 1:41 AM. Rejected again. Two notes:
4.1(a): "The metadata appears to contain potentially misleading references to third-party content. Specifically, the metadata still includes content that resembles Transformers without the necessary authorization. … If you do not have the necessary rights to the third-party content, it would be appropriate to revise the metadata to remove the third-party content before resubmitting for review."
2.3.3: "The iPhone and iPad screenshots do not show the actual app in use in the majority of the screenshots. Marketing or promotional materials that do not reflect the UI of the app are not appropriate for screenshots."
This is the third time the rejection has cited "the metadata" without naming a single specific field. After three rounds my description has zero third-party references, promotional text has none, keywords have none, and screenshots are stripped. There is nothing left in the listing to act on.
Before redesigning the mascot for vc132 I sent App Review a direct question asking for any guidance on the icon and mascot direction. The full reply:
Hello,
We appreciate your efforts to comply with the App Review Guidelines.
We are not able to provide feedback on app concepts or features, but we recommend evaluating your suggestions against the App Review Guidelines, the Apple Developer Program License Agreement, and the Human Interface Guidelines.
Additionally, if you are considering implementing any of the following functionality, we recommend reviewing all associated reference material:
- Apple Developer
- Apple Copyright and Trademark Guidelines
- Game Center
- iCloud
- In-App Purchase
You may also choose to post a question in the Apple Developer Forums.
Best regards, App Review
That reply, taken with three rejection notes that name no specific field, reads exactly like a large language model behind a developer-relations endpoint. Nothing app-specific. References functionality with no bearing on my submission (Game Center, iCloud, In-App Purchase). Closes by redirecting me to this forum, which is the only reason I am writing the post. The whole exchange feels like I am talking to a system, not a person.
If a human reviewer is on the other end of this thread, I am asking you to engage as one. One sentence naming the specific flagged surface resolves this thread today.
The two notes also contradict each other on remediation. 2.3.3 wants screenshots showing the actual app in use, not marketing. 4.1(a) wants third-party-resembling content removed from "the metadata." Once the listing copy is generic and the screenshots show the real UI, what those screenshots show is the in-app catalog. So the only third-party-resembling content the reviewer can still be pointing at is the catalog itself, a different scope than how metadata versus in-app content has historically been drawn.
What that means in practice: Bot Binder has over 1000 active users with new collectors joining every day, and the in-app catalog contains more than 10,000 figures. If 4.1(a) is pointing at the catalog, the only remediation Apple's note is offering me is to remove that content, which isn't viable. The catalog is the product. Stripping 10,000 catalog entries invalidates the collections, wishlists, and trade data of every existing user. There is no version of this app that satisfies that interpretation and still functions. Either the scope is different than I'm reading, or 4.1(a) is being applied to a category of app that cannot exist on the App Store, in which case I need that stated directly so I can stop iterating.
What I need.
-
App Review staff, if a person is reading this: name the surface. Which field, which screenshot, which paragraph still flags as third-party-resembling? One sentence. If the answer is "the in-app catalog," say so and I will stop submitting.
-
Developers running unlicensed-IP collector apps on the App Store, particularly iCollect Action Figures (656405076, "Transformers" in subtitle), The Ark TFC86 by Chris Sudac, My G.I. Joes (1606553734), Dex (1555489854), Yugipedia (1026470546), Brick by Brick (525328219), Pokellector (600580227). What got you through 4.1(a)? Disclaimer language, or did you have to remove franchise content from the iOS build itself? Asking because some of you are doing exactly what I am being rejected for and your apps are live.
-
Anyone who has booked an App Review Appointment for 4.1(a): did you get surgical guidance, or the same template?
Full submission timeline, build IDs, screenshots, and the appStoreReviewDetail record available on request. After six days of taking every revision step Apple has asked for and landing in the same place, I just need actual specificity from somebody.
