Loading...
Loading...
When the user's app or update was rejected by Apple App Review or Google Play Review and they need to diagnose why, fix it, and resubmit fast. Use when the user mentions "app rejected", "App Review rejection", "guideline violation", "Apple rejected my app", "Google Play rejected", "Play policy violation", "Resolution Center", "metadata rejection", "binary rejection", "guideline 2.1", "guideline 4.3", "guideline 5.1.1", "Sign in with Apple required", "Apple ID rejection", "Play Store suspension", "appeal", "I need to respond to App Review", or "expedited review". For pre-submission listing health, see aso-audit. For metadata-only fixes, see metadata-optimization.
npx skill4agent add eronred/aso-skills app-rejection-recovery| Guideline | Bucket | Typical fix |
|---|---|---|
| 2.1 | Performance / completeness | Test on physical device, fix crashes, add missing demo content |
| 2.3.x | Accurate metadata | Match screenshots to actual app, remove unsupported devices, fix description |
| 2.5.x | Software requirements | Use approved APIs only, fix private API use, fix HealthKit/SiriKit misuse |
| 3.1.1 | In-app purchase | Use IAP for digital goods, no external payment links |
| 3.1.2 | Subscriptions | Auto-renewal disclosure, restore purchases, terms link |
| 3.2.2 | Unacceptable business model | Multi-level marketing, scams, etc. |
| 4.0 | Design | Spam, copycat UI, broken layouts |
| 4.2 | Minimum functionality | Web wrappers, "thin" apps, brochureware |
| 4.3 | Spam | Duplicate of own/other app — most common rejection |
| 4.5.x | Apple sites and services | Wrong logo use, push notification misuse |
| 5.1.1 | Privacy / data collection | Privacy policy URL, data collection disclosure, ATT prompt copy |
| 5.1.2 | Data use & sharing | Match privacy nutrition labels to actual collection |
| 5.1.5 | Location services | Justify "Always" location, ATT-style strings |
| 5.1.7 | Health & medical | Disclaimers, no diagnostic claims without FDA |
| 5.2.x | Intellectual property | Trademark/IP holder permission required |
| 5.3.x | Gaming, gambling, lotteries | License requirements |
| 5.6.1 | Developer code of conduct | Spam, fake reviews, manipulation |
| Policy | Bucket | Typical fix |
|---|---|---|
| Restricted Content | Sexual content, hate, violence | Content moderation, age gate |
| Privacy, Deception, Device Abuse | Disclosure, permissions | Privacy policy, accurate Data Safety form |
| Intellectual Property | Trademark, copyright | Get rights or remove |
| Monetization & Ads | Disruptive ads, IAP bypass | Use Play Billing |
| Store Listing & Promotion | Misleading metadata | Match listing to app |
| Spam & Minimum Functionality | Repetitive content, low quality | Add unique value |
| Families | Apps for kids | COPPA/GDPR-K compliance, ad SDK whitelist |
| Permissions | High-risk perms | Remove or justify (Special Permissions Declaration form) |
| Health misinformation | Medical claims | Add disclaimers, provide credentials |
| Foreground services | Background work | Justify in Play Console form |
Hello App Review Team,
Thank you for the feedback regarding guideline <X.Y.Z>.
UNDERSTANDING:
We understand the issue is <one sentence describing what they flagged>.
CHANGES MADE:
1. <specific change>
2. <specific change>
3. <specific change>
DEMO INFO (if applicable):
Username: demo@example.com
Password: <password>
Steps to test: <numbered steps>
Walkthrough video: <URL if needed>
We have submitted build <X.Y.Z (build N)> with these changes. Please let us know if any further information is needed.
Thank you,
<Name>| Situation | Action |
|---|---|
| Reviewer applied guideline incorrectly | Appeal via App Review Board (Apple) — be polite, factual, brief |
| Reviewer mis-tested (e.g. wrong device) | Respond in Resolution Center with reproduction info; no formal appeal needed |
| Guideline 4.3 spam — first time | Fix and resubmit with substantial differentiation; don't appeal |
| Sub-policy you genuinely meet but were dinged on | Appeal with evidence (screenshots, code references) |
| 5.6.1 developer account threats / suspension | Appeal immediately, provide context, don't ignore |
REJECTION DIAGNOSIS — <App Name>
REJECTION TYPE:
Platform: Apple / Google
Guideline / Policy: <number>
Bucket: <category from playbook>
Severity: low / medium / high (fix complexity)
ROOT CAUSE:
<one paragraph in plain English>
FIX PLAN:
Code changes: <list>
Metadata changes: <list>
Configuration changes (Info.plist, ASC settings): <list>
Estimated effort: <hours>
RESOLUTION CENTER RESPONSE (draft):
<use template above>
RESUBMISSION CHECKLIST:
[ ] Tested on device Apple tested on
[ ] Demo account verified
[ ] Build number incremented
[ ] Privacy nutrition labels match
[ ] Response posted in Resolution Center
[ ] Expedited review requested (if justified)
POST-RESUBMISSION:
- Expected re-review: 24-48h Apple / variable Google
- If rejected again: <next escalation step>aso-auditaso-auditmetadata-optimizationpaywall-optimizationonboarding-optimization