Repeated Guideline 4.3 spam rejections on recent submissions

Question

Created 3d

Replies 1

Boosts 0

Participants 2

I’m looking for advice from developers who have experienced repeated Guideline 4.3 (Spam) rejections. My last four new app submissions were each rejected for 4.3 very soon after submission, with broad feedback that did not identify the specific binary, metadata, or concepts considered duplicative.

The apps have distinct functionality, though they share some common infrastructure. I’ve responded to App Review’s questions and filed an appeal for the most recent rejection. I’m trying to understand whether others have seen a similar pattern and what evidence or changes helped obtain specific, app-by-app feedback.

Did you encounter repeated 4.3 rejections across multiple distinct apps? If so, what helped clarify the issue with App Review, and did the appeal or support process lead to useful guidance? I’m not posting app or account identifiers publicly, but can share more detail privately if appropriate.

Answer 1

GetResubmit OP

2d

Four consecutive 4.3 rejections justify comparing the submissions together, but the timing alone does not establish an automated account-level block.

First, check whether the notices identify 4.3(a) or 4.3(b). The former concerns multiple Bundle IDs for the same app; the latter concerns insufficient differentiation from apps already available. Those require different evidence.

I would prepare a compact comparison of the exact submitted builds:

Each app’s target user, primary task and completed user outcome.
Screenshots and a short recording showing its distinctive core workflow.
Shared components, separating infrastructure such as authentication and analytics from shared product screens, content and functionality.
Any template or purchased-code origins, with an accurate explanation of what was developed independently.
The submitted metadata and screenshots, checking whether they make different products appear interchangeable.

Make sure the distinguishing features are accessible with the review credentials. A difference that appears only after onboarding, payment or an unavailable integration may be difficult for the reviewer to verify.

For the pending appeal, a focused clarification could be:

“Could you clarify whether this finding concerns duplication among our own apps under 4.3(a), or insufficient differentiation from existing App Store offerings under 4.3(b)? We can provide a comparison of the submitted builds, shared infrastructure and distinct user workflows, with reproduction steps for each material difference.”

If the comparison reveals that the apps mainly vary by branding or content, consider consolidation. If their core workflows are genuinely different, demonstrate those differences directly rather than relying on a general statement that each app is unique.