Hello, I’m honestly trying to understand what’s going on with the Family Controls API review process. I submitted my entitlement request on March 5, and as of today (March 19), there has been zero response. I also opened a support ticket on March 16, and that hasn’t received any response either. What’s confusing is that updates to another app on the same developer account were approved within days so clearly the account is in good standing and active. At this point, it feels like there’s no visibility into what’s happening: Is the request under review? Is it waiting for additional information? Or is it just sitting in a queue indefinitely? I understand that Family Controls is a sensitive API, but a two-week silence with no status or communication makes it very difficult to plan or ship features. For those who’ve gone through this: How long did your approval actually take? Did you receive any communication during the process? Is there any reliable way to get visibility or speed this up? Right now, this is blocking a feature we’ve invested significant time building, and the lack of feedback is the most frustrating part. Would really appreciate any insights.

Hi community. It's my first time trying WatchConnectivity kit. When I attempt to send ApplicationContext from phone, my debug print indicates that updateApplicationContext is working correctly. However, I'm having trouble receiving it form the paired watch simulator as nothing is shown on that end. Here are the code for the Phone Extension:     func sendDataToWatch(data: String) {         state.append(data)         do {             NSLog("sent by phone")             try WCSession.default.updateApplicationContext(["currentstate": state])         }         catch {             print(error)         }     } Here are the code for watch: func session(_ session: WCSession, didReceiveApplicationContext applicationContext: [String: Any]) {         print("Hello")         if let getState = applicationContext["currentstate"] as? [String]{             print("\(getState)")             self.state = getState[0]         }     } Any suggestion would be appreciated!

https://developer.apple.com/documentation/DeclaredAgeRange/AgeRangeService/isEligibleForAgeFeatures returns a bool. I assume that means that it will return True for the states where their laws are in effect. The TX law and the UT/LA/AZ laws have different requirements though: TX requires the app verify the user's age on every app launch. These other states require the app verify the user's age "no more than once during each 12-month period" A future law (Brazil maybe?) might do something else. How can we determine if the user is eligible for the TX versus other state requirements?

A screen time app I'm making has started telling users that their limit was reached even when they're far below their limit for the day (sometimes even at 0 minutes for the day). This issue only started happening after upgrading my software to iOS 26.2. Is this happening to anyone else? If so how have you found any solutions or does anyone know of any changes that could be causing this? Any help would be appreciated.

Hello, my app is frequently loosing / forgetting the Screen Time Permission that had been granted previously on iOS 26. I have experienced it myself, sysdiagnose is in this radar: FB18997699 But also also my App Store users who have updated to iOS 26 already have reported this bug. It would be great if Apple could ensure that this bug is addressed before iOS 26 is released to the public.

I am getting bug reports from users that occasionally the AlarmKit alarms scheduled by my app are going off exactly at midnight. In my app, users can set recurring alarms for sunrise/sunset etc. I implement this as fixed schedule alarms over the next 2-3 days with correct dates pre-computed at schedule time. I have a background task which is scheduled to run at noon every day to update the alarms for the next 2-3 days. Are there any limitations to the fixed schedule which might be causing this unintended behavior of going off at midnight?

We made an update of one of our games with the Declared Age Range framework, and one of the users contacted us, asking how could he confirm his age to access the app's features. Meaning that isEligibleForAgeFeatures returned true on his device. According to documentation: Use isEligibleForAgeFeatures to determine whether associated laws or regulations may apply to your app based on the person’s location and account settings. This property returns true when your app needs to support Age Assurance for the current user. As far as we know, the laws are not applied anywhere yet. So, why did isEligibleForAgeFeatures return true?

When i use the MFMailComposeViewController in visionOS, there is no cancel button for the controller. The button at the bottom closes the app. Is anyone else experiencing this? if([MFMailComposeViewController canSendMail]) { MFMailComposeViewController* controller = [[MFMailComposeViewController alloc] init]; controller.mailComposeDelegate = (id <MFMailComposeViewControllerDelegate>)view; [controller setToRecipients:toAddresses]; [controller setSubject:subject]; [controller setMessageBody:body isHTML:isHtml]; [view presentViewController:controller animated:YES completion:nil]; }

Hello, iOS 26.4 has new APIs which is great. This brings new capability and updated permissions "flow". However as soon as we add the "Family Controls App and Website Usage" capability, then anyone on iOS 26.4 and above can either only approve full access or no access at all. (https://developer.apple.com/documentation/familycontrols/authorizationstatus/approvedwithdataaccess) The previous permission is impossible to obtain. Am I missing something? Is this intended behavior? We can imagine a situation where the user doesn't want to give full access (perhaps because the permissions screen says the app is able to see usage - which is not correct) but they still want to approve Screen Time permissions so the app can apply shields and what not. Thanks.

Hey there, We are being incorrectly blocked by Time Limits since the iOS 26 update released earlier this year. We are receiving complaints from parents that set a screentime limit for "All apps", and then add an exception for us, that they are still getting blocked by the OS after a certain period of time. While we originally thought this was fixed in 26.1, we have recently been made aware it still occurs. Has anyone else experienced this issue? Is there something we can do from our side to protect ourselves from this? Telling customers to remove their "All app" limit isn't really practical given our customer base, so we're looking to see if there's something on Apple's end or our end that can alleviate this.

Dear Sir/Madam, Thank you for your support. I have reviewed the documentation for Local Push Connectivity (see URL below) and, following the instruction in the "Important" section to "Request this entitlement from the Entitlement Request Page," I completed the application process for this Entitlement on March 11, 2026. [Local push connectivity] https://developer.apple.com/documentation/networkextension/local-push-connectivity?language=objc#Supporting-APNs-and-local-push-connectivity-in-one-app Subsequently, on March 13, 2026, I received the following reply from Apple: Sub : Re: Requesting Network Extension App Push Entitlement From: Local Push Review Sent: Friday, March 13, 2026 4:09 AM Hi, Thank you for your interest in the Local Push Connectivity entitlement. Your entitlement request has been approved for: Team ID: NWKYYYYYYY Technical documentation on this API is available here: -(Omission) - Best Regards, Apple Developer Relations My understanding is that upon approval of this application, an "Entitlements" field should be added to the input fields for creating provisioning profiles. However, as of today(March 18, 2026), it has not yet been added. Will the Entitlements field be added if I simply wait? My account (Apple ID), which submitted the application, belongs to three Team IDs. For convenience, I will refer to them as Team ID SV3XXXXXXX, Team ID NWKYYYYYYY, and Team ID WEJZZZZZZZ. The application status for Entitlements for each Team ID is as follows: Team ID SV3XXXXXXX Entitlements: Present. Applied for Entitlements on February 6, 2021. (Received "Re: Requesting Network Extension App Push Entitlement" email on February 6, 2021) Team ID NWKYYYYYYY Entitlements: Not present. Applied for Entitlements on March 13, 2026. (Received "Re: Requesting Network Extension App Push Entitlement" email on March 13, 2026) Team ID WEJZZZZZZZ Entitlements: Present. No record (email) of applying for Entitlements. Because of this, I am concerned that the Entitlements applied for Team ID NWKYYYYYYY may have been mistakenly granted to Team ID WEJZZZZZZZ, and I am inquiring about this. Will the Entitlements field for Team ID NWKYYYYYYY be added if I simply wait? Thank you in advance.

I am implementing an Unwanted Communication Reporting Extension (IdentityLookupUI) to allow users to report spam messages to our backend. The extension works perfectly in terms of data collection and network reporting (using ILClassificationExtensionNetworkReportDestination). However, I’ve encountered an issue with the message lifecycle: whenever the user taps "Done" and I return a response, the system automatically moves the reported message to the Recently Deleted folder. I want to report the data but keep the message in its current folder (especially when the user classifies it as "Safe"). I have tried varying the ILClassificationAction, but it seems the system ignores the action in favor of "cleaning up" the thread. Example of my current implementation: override func classificationResponse(for request: ILClassificationRequest) -> ILClassificationResponse { // Even when returning .none or .reportNotJunk let action: ILClassificationAction = (self.type == "spam") ? .reportJunk : .none let response = ILClassificationResponse(action: action) response.userInfo = ["type": self.taggedType, "sender": self.sender] return response } My Questions: Is there a specific ILClassificationAction or userInfo key that tells iOS not to move the message? Is this movement a mandatory "post-report cleanup" behavior of the IdentityLookup framework that cannot be overridden? Does anyone know a workaround to report the communication while maintaining its original location in the Messages app?

Today is March 17th, which is the effective date for BR DECA. From what I can tell, isEligibleForAgeFeatures is still returning False for users in Brazil. Following up on https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/816987?answerId=878188022#878188022, the API does not appear to be covering the requirements for this regulation. Could you please give some guidance on whether isEligibleForAgeFeatures will ever return True for Brazil? I'm also curious whether other apps are also seeing the same behavior (isEligibleForAgeFeatures=False) for users in BR today.

From the Feb 24 news, I understand that for all Apple users in Brazil with iOS26.2 and newer, isEligibleForAgeFeatures will eventually return true. Brazil is a "nonregulated region", and developers will need to handle all three situations of ask first/always share/never share. Please correct me if I'm wrong above. A few questions follow on the eligibility check: What's the return value of IsEligibleForAgeFeatures for a Brazilian user who has NOT touched the age range feature at all, thus hasn't picked one of the three options? How can we test these cases? From the updated sandbox doc, there's more information on declined/approved, will those the same behaviors as a future Brazilian user? The doc used to say Texas, now it doesn't say any region. On which date will Apple START to return true for IsEligibleForAgeFeatures for Brazilian users? I cannot find the exact date anywhere. Will ALL of Brazil return true overnight, or is there some ramp up that developers need to be aware of? Thanks a lot for sharing the guidance, and thanks in advance for more guidance to come!

When calling the verification interface for "whether the user belongs to a restricted region", the return value is always false; even if the Apple account is registered as an account belonging to a restricted region and the account is set to supervised mode, the interface return result remains unchanged, and it is impossible to verify a true result. The code for calling the interface is as follows: @available(iOS 26.2, *) @objc public func eligibleForAgeFeatures() async -> Bool { var isEligible = false do { isEligible = try await AgeRangeService.shared.isEligibleForAgeFeatures } catch { isEligible = false } return isEligible }

I try to update remoteHandle using CXCallUpdate for outgoing call, but this works only on iOS 15 but not on 17 or 18 (16 didn't test). This problem actual only for outgoing calls, but for incoming calls update works fine. func startOutgoingCall(with callID: UUID, userID: String) { let handle = CXHandle(type: .generic, value: userID) let action = CXStartCallAction(call: callID, handle: handle) callController.requestTransaction(with: action) { [weak self] error in // ... } } func updateOutgoingCall(with callID: UUID, groupID: String) { let update = CXCallUpdate() update.remoteHandle = CXHandle(type: .generic, value: groupID) provider.reportCall(with: callID, updated: update) } I also tried phoneNumber type but it seems initial handle that I set to CXStartCallAction not possible to change (value or even type). I use this handle value to implement recall by tap on call in Recents tab of system address book. But since my calls can transform from p2p to group call, I need to update handle value or find some another way to pass call identification info.

We now know the IsEligibleForAgeFeatures API is NOT returning True in Brazil at least 2 days past compliance date, and we don't know if that's the right API, or how it behaves. Folks here: Is there anyone here from Brazil who has tested out this 26.4 API? Has anyone tested out the regulatory feature API? Does it return something like declaredAgeRangeRequired? I don't know how to test it in Brazil without sandbox/physically in Brazil. Much appreciated!!

I am attempting to configure appclips, but I am getting this error in App Store Connect. I created an app clips target in my project, I have checked the XCAsset files and it is included when archived and pushed to App Store Connect. In both my parent and my app clips target I've added the associated domains capabilities, with the following associated same domains for both targets: appclips:akin-server-side-staging.onrender.com appclips:akin-server-side.onrender.com applinks:akin-server-side-staging.onrender.com applinks:akin-server-side.onrender.com My server is configured to serve the following json at all permutations of the staging endpoints and prod endpoints for both well known and aasa without well known. Here is one of them: https://akin-server-side.onrender.com/.well-known/apple-app-site-association Here is the JSON it is returning: {"applinks":{"details":[{"appIDs":["8PJ28P9ZZ8.com.ElevatedUnderdogs.akin1"],"components":[{"\/":"\/appClips\/referral\/venueToUser\/*"}]}]},"appclips":{"apps":["8PJ28P9ZZ8.com.ElevatedUnderdogs.akin1.Clip"]}} And yet I'm still getting Invalid Entitlement: Unknown ID in the store.

Hi everyone, I’m honestly trying to understand what’s going on with the Family Controls API review process. I submitted my entitlement request on March 5, and as of today (March 19), there has been zero response. I also opened a support ticket on March 16, and that hasn’t received any response either. What’s confusing is that updates to another app on the same developer account were approved within days — so clearly the account is in good standing and active. At this point, it feels like there’s no visibility into what’s happening: Is the request under review? Is it waiting for additional information? Or is it just sitting in a queue indefinitely? I understand that Family Controls is a sensitive API, but a two-week silence with no status or communication makes it very difficult to plan or ship features. For those who’ve gone through this: How long did your approval actually take? Did you receive any communication during the process? Is there any reliable way to get visibility or speed this up? Right now, this is blocking a feature we’ve invested significant time building, and the lack of feedback is the most frustrating part. This is really giving me pain. Would really appreciate any insights.

I have a feature that relies on Apple Universal Links, which requires the apple-app-site-association file. I made some changes to this file a week ago, but I noticed that the corresponding file still hasn’t been updated when queried via: https://app-site-association.cdn-apple.com/a/v1/x When I query directly from our server, I can see the latest file here: https://x/.well-known/assetlinks.json Could anyone please help us update the file in the CDN? Thank you.