r/iOSProgramming • u/Flimsy_Elevator_5231 • 22h ago
Question Existing app repeatedly rejected under 4.3(a) after adding RevenueCat and Meta SDK. Has anyone experienced this?
Hi everyone,
I have an iPhone camera app called FilmFold. Versions 1.0 and 1.1 were approved, but the 1.2 update has now been rejected several times under Guideline 4.3(a), Design and Spam.
Apple says the app shares a similar binary, metadata, or concept with apps submitted by me or other developers. The problem is that they do not identify what is similar. Every reply I receive is basically the same guideline text.
This is an update under the same App Store record and bundle identifier. FilmFold is the only app in my developer account. It is not a template or white-label app, I have never submitted it from another account, and the source repository is private.
FilmFold has 22 original virtual cameras. Each one has its own interface, optics, focal range, aspect ratio, color processing and behavior. The app also has custom native photo and video processing, lenses, accessories, double exposure and a local library that preserves the original media for later reprocessing.
The approved 1.1 version already had the 22 cameras, continuous zoom and the current adjustment interface.
The rejected 1.2 build added major native processing changes for three video cameras: Tape 99 Hi8, Warm 8 and Cine 35. It also added migration support for videos created in previous versions.
The biggest non-product difference is that 1.2 also added:
- RevenueCat for purchase entitlements
- RevenueCat's remotely configured paywall, offerings and placements
- Meta App Events and attribution
- App Tracking Transparency support
- EAS Update through `expo-updates`
I am not saying these SDKs violate 4.3(a). They are legitimate and widely used. I am wondering if one of them, a shared SDK resource, a remote paywall configuration, or an account identifier could have triggered an automated similarity check.
I have asked Apple to compare 1.2 with the approved 1.1 binary and to tell me whether the issue is related to code, assets, metadata or functionality. They continue to send the same generic response.
I have now prepared a new build, but I have not submitted it. It removes RevenueCat, the RevenueCat paywall, Meta, ATT and `expo-updates`. Purchases are handled directly through StoreKit again, using FilmFold's own paywall. The actual camera improvements remain.
Has anyone had a similar experience with an update to an existing app?
- Did RevenueCat, a remote paywall, Meta SDK or another common SDK ever cause a 4.3(a) problem for you?
- How did you get Apple to explain what was considered similar?
- Did removing the SDKs solve it?
- Did a formal appeal or App Review phone call help?
- Would you submit the cleaned build first or appeal the rejected build before replacing it?
I would really appreciate hearing from anyone who has actually resolved a similar rejection.