An ITMS-91061: Missing privacy manifest rejection email looks as follows: ITMS-91061: Missing privacy manifest- Your app includes "<path/to/SDK>", which includes , an SDK that was identified in the documentation as a privacy-impacting third-party SDK. Starting February 12, 2025, if a new app includes a privacy-impacting SDK, or an app update adds a new privacy-impacting SDK, the SDK must include a privacy manifest file. Please contact the provider of the SDK that includes this file to get an updated SDK version with a privacy manifest. For more details about this policy, including a list of SDKs that are required to include signatures and manifests, visit: https://developer.apple.com/support/third-party-SDK-requirements. Glossary ITMS-91061: Missing privacy manifest: An email that includes the name and path of privacy-impacting SDK(s) with no privacy manifest files in your app bundle. For more information, see https://developer.apple.com/support/third-party-SDK-requirements. : The specified privacy-impacting SDK that doesn't include a privacy manifest file. If you are the developer of the rejected app, gather the name of the SDK from the email you received from Apple, then contact the SDK's provider for an updated version that includes a valid privacy manifest. After receiving an updated version of the SDK, verify the SDK includes a valid privacy manifest file at the expected location. For more information, see Adding a privacy manifest to your app or third-party SDK. If your app includes a privacy manifest file, make sure the file only describes the privacy practices of your app. Do not add the privacy practices of the SDK to your app's privacy manifest. If the email lists multiple SDKs, repeat the above process for all of them. If you are the developer of an SDK listed in the email, publish an updated version of your SDK that includes a privacy manifest file with valid keys and values. Every privacy-impacting SDK must contain a privacy manifest file that only describes its privacy practices. To learn how to add a valid privacy manifest to your SDK, see the Additional resources section below. Additional resources Privacy manifest files Describing data use in privacy manifests Describing use of required reason API Adding a privacy manifest to your app or third-party SDK TN3182: Adding privacy tracking keys to your privacy manifest TN3183: Adding required reason API entries to your privacy manifest TN3184: Adding data collection details to your privacy manifest TN3181: Debugging an invalid privacy manifest

In this post, we'll share tips to help you submit apps that deliver original ideas to your users. When working on your app, focus on creating interesting, unique experiences that aren't already available. Apps that actively try to copy other apps won't pass review, and accounts that repeatedly submit copycat apps or attempt to impersonate a service will be closed. The rules that prevent copycat and impersonator apps from being distributed on the App Store are described in App Review Guideline 4.1: 4.1 Copycats (a) Come up with your own ideas. We know you have them, so make yours come to life. Don’t simply copy the latest popular app on the App Store, or make some minor changes to another app’s name or UI and pass it off as your own. In addition to risking an intellectual property infringement claim, it makes the App Store harder to navigate and just isn’t fair to your fellow developers. (b) Submitting apps which impersonate other apps or services is considered a violation of the Developer Code of Conduct and may result in removal from the Apple Developer Program.(c) You cannot use another developer’s icon, brand, or product name in your app’s icon or name, without approval from the developer. These requirements help make the App Store both a safe place for people to discover apps and a platform for all developers to be successful. Best Practices Here are three best practices that will help you submit apps that follow App Review Guideline 4.1: 1. Submit apps with unique content and features. People want apps that provide unique experiences. Find areas that aren't currently being served and build compelling apps for those audiences. Do: Create apps that provide a new experience or a unique spin on an existing concept. Design original, delightful interfaces that elegantly meet your user's needs. Don't: Don’t imitate the features and functionality of other apps. Don’t copy the look and feel of other apps, such as using an identical user interface design. 2. Make sure App Store metadata only contains relevant information and content you either own or have permission to use. The metadata provided in App Store Connect is used to populate your app's product page on the App Store. People rely on this metadata to learn about your app and what it has to offer. Leveraging the popularity of another brand or app, either by including irrelevant references or protected content, is misleading and won't help your app succeed. Do: Use engaging, descriptive language to describe your unique app. Create original content that best represents your app, such as screenshots showing the actual app in use. Don't: Don't use protected material you do not have the necessary permission to use, such as app icons that are similar to icons of a popular app. Don’t include irrelevant references, such as popular app names or trademarked terms, in any metadata fields. 3. Provide information that is authentic and verifiable. People want to know the developers behind their favorite apps are who they say they are. It's important to continually review and provide up-to-date information, including the developer or company name listed on your Apple Developer Program account, the Support URL listed on your app's product page, and other helpful information. This will enable your users to contact you when they need help and it will also hinder people who may try to impersonate you, your app, or your service. Do: Make sure all information, resources, and documentation related to your account and apps are current and accurate. Don't: Don’t provide inaccurate information or resources, such as directing people to outdated support pages. Don’t provide fraudulent documentation. Accounts that submit fraudulent documentation will be removed from the Apple Developer Program. Support Incorporating these best practices into your app's development will help you submit apps that follow App Review Guideline 4.1. If you need additional assistance, consider taking advantage of one of the following support options available from App Review: If your submission has been rejected, reply to the message from App Review in App Store Connect and request clarification. Request an App Review Appointment to discuss the results of our review. Appointments are subject to availability, and take place during local business hours in your region on Tuesdays and Thursdays. If you believe your app follows the App Review Guidelines, consider submitting an appeal to the App Review Board. Resources Learn about foundational design principles from Apple designers and the developer community. Learn how to create engaging App Store product pages. Note that apps that violate intellectual property rights are subject to removal through the App Store Content Dispute process. If you believe an app on the App Store violates your intellectual property rights, you can submit a claim.

Hi! Our app has been rejected several times now. We first selected the "made for kids" category because that was the age recommended by apple. Everything went fine at first but now, two updated later, we are starting to get rejected. We unchecked the made for kids box but even after that we are still not getting approved. We have tried to explain our issue to apple support but they aren't giving us any good answers. Is there any way to resolve this issue? We are really in the need of help.

My app (App ID: 6757516331) has been stuck in "Waiting for Review" since February 3rd. It has been over a week, and I have not received any updates yet. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Hi, Got my first submission rejected due to Design - Minimum Functionality and would like to ask for some guidance on what to do. To give some context of my app. My app is quite simple but solves a common issue in my home town. During the winter month, every street will have a certain time when parking is forbidden. This results in everyone having to move their car several times a week to avoid getting tickets. Every time you move, you need to note and remember when to move it again, etc. A parking ticket for forgetting is around 140 USD. My app aims to solve this by letting the user press a button which makes the app use the current GPS location to fetch the parking relevant parking restriction and create a notification the day before, reminding the user to move their car. Simple UI and nothing fancy. I've also created onboarding that gives relevant information the first time a user open their app. I'm a bit on the fence on what I should do to pass. In my opinion, the functionality is more than a website because it uses GPS, creates notifications, loading spinner when parking restrictions are being fetched, has onboarding, etc. I think an issue that might cause the reviewer to dismiss it is that it currently only work in my specific town - it uses certain APIs to fetch the parking restrictions. So, should I try to create more functionality (not sure what) or do I need to clearly argue my case and demo my apps functionality via recordings? Thanks in advance for any help and guidance :)

My app has been in “Waiting for Review” since January 31. I already submitted a support case (id - 102819325365) last week, but haven’t received a response. I also requested an expedited review but with no response either. This is not a new app, and all previous submissions were completed in less than 48 hours, so this delay seems unusual.

Hello everyone, I wanted to check if anyone else has experienced longer App Review delays recently. Our recent app submission has been in the “In Review” status for more than 7 days (since Jan 15, 10:44 PM). In our previous submissions, reviews usually started or completed within a few days, so this delay feels unusual. Current situation: No messages or rejection notes from Apple No metadata or compliance issues flagged Status remains “In Review” without updates I’d appreciate guidance from the community: • Is this type of delay normal these days? • Could this indicate a manual or extended review? • At what point should we contact App Review directly? • What is the best way to contact App Store / App Review support regarding a stuck review? If anyone has faced a similar delay and can share their experience or advice, it would be very helpful. Thank you in advance for your help.

Hello, I’m looking for guidance regarding a new app submission that has been in “Waiting for Review” status for 6 days now, with no change or additional communication. This is a brand-new app submission (not an update). There have been no metadata changes or rejections — it has remained in the waiting state since submission. I completely understand that review times can vary depending on workload and complexity. I just wanted to check whether this timeframe is currently normal, or if there may be something specific I should verify on my end. The app is an educational medical application, and all content is original. There are no unusual entitlements, external payment systems, or restricted APIs involved. If anyone from Apple or fellow developers has insight into whether extended “Waiting for Review” times are currently common, I would appreciate your input. Thank you in advance.

Hello, We have applied for the Apple Developer Program under a government organization account. After submitting the enrollment, we received a confirmation email stating that the request was received and that we would be contacted after verification of authorization to bind the organization to the Apple Developer Program legal agreements. However, it has been quite some time, and we have not received any further updates regarding the verification process. We would like to understand: What is the usual verification timeline for government organizations? Is extended verification common for government entities? Is there anything additional we should do from our side to help move the process forward? If anyone has experienced a similar situation or can share guidance, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

I recently released the first version of my app, and it was discoverable via App Store search. After pushing an update with bug fixes and improved keywords/category, the new version went live and showed as “Ready for Sale” within hours. However, since the update, the app no longer appears in App Store search results - even when searched using its exact name. It’s still accessible through the direct link. Any insights or guidance would be greatly appreciated!

I have been exploring App Store Optimization and noticed that Apple primarily uses the App Name, Subtitle, and Keyword field as the main text based ranking signals according to official and third party sources. Are these the only factors that truly impact iOS ASO, or do elements like the app description and promotional text indirectly influence visibility, conversion, or ranking updates over time, and how frequently should subtitles and keywords be revised after launch.

When I update my app name, the App Store URL also changes, and since the app URL contributes to ASO performance, this is a concern for me. I would like to know whether it is possible to change the app name without affecting the URL, or if the previous URL automatically redirects to the new one.

I see many developers struggling with ASO where AI written content does not deliver results, performance analysis is unclear, localization is ignored, App Store optimization is incomplete, and keywords are often poorly chosen. I am considering running two simple group sessions to share practical tips and show clear ways to improve ASO with real effort involved, and I would like feedback on this idea whether offered for a small fee or even for free.

Hello, With the recent update to Guideline 1.2 stating apps used primarily for “anonymous chat” may be removed, could App Review clarify what “anonymous” means in this context? In our app, users interact using a chosen username and avatar. We don’t display legal names publicly, but each user has a persistent, verified account and all UGC is tied to that account so we can enforce bans. We also provide filtering, reporting, and blocking. Question: Do applications that provide chat functionality with pseudonymous users — meaning users do not display their real names — have the right to exist under this guideline, provided that accounts are persistent and enforceable? If anyone has recently passed review with a similar pseudonymous chat model, I’d appreciate any guidance on how you framed 1.2 compliance.

My app was reviewed and approved on Feb 3rd, and still does not show in app store. I have submitted a ticket to Apple Feb 3rd, and still have not received a reply. I get either 404, or "this app is not available your country or region". This does it for me, and anyone I've asked to try it. This is very confusing - please someone help! https://apps.apple.com/us/app/exp-lights/id6758403863

Hello, My app update was rejected under Guideline 2.3.4 (Accurate Metadata) with the note that the app preview includes “framing around the video screen capture.” Apple attached four images to the review. I reviewed them carefully, and they appear to show full screen gameplay without borders or visible background. I am attaching two of those images here for reference. I am trying to understand what Apple might be interpreting as “framing” in this case. Has anyone encountered a similar rejection where the preview looked full screen but was still flagged? Any insight into what reviewers typically expect or what subtle issues might trigger this would be very helpful. Thank you.

Hello, I’m experiencing repeated rejections related to Guideline 2.1 – App Completeness for an iOS app using auto-renewable subscriptions, and I’m struggling to understand what is missing, as the purchase flow works correctly in sandbox and TestFlight. App setup: iOS app built with React Native (Expo + react-native-iap) Auto-renewable subscriptions: • Monthly: €4.99 • Yearly: €39.99 Paid Apps Agreement accepted Subscriptions configured and active in App Store Connect Privacy Policy and Apple Standard EULA included: • Visible inside the app on the subscription screen • Added in App Store metadata What App Review reports: App Review states they are unable to buy the in-app purchase, resulting in a rejection under Guideline 2.1 (App Completeness). What works correctly: getSubscriptions() returns valid products in sandbox Subscription titles, prices, and durations are displayed in the app UI requestSubscription() is triggered when tapping the subscribe button Apple purchase sheet appears and completes successfully in: • Sandbox testing • TestFlight (external testers) What I’ve verified: No conditional logic blocks purchases in review builds Purchase button always calls requestSubscription purchaseUpdatedListener and purchaseErrorListener are correctly registered No hardcoded prices; prices come from StoreKit Same behavior on iPhone and iPad Question: Is there any known limitation or requirement in the App Review environment for auto-renewable subscriptions that differs from sandbox/TestFlight when using a custom subscription UI (not SubscriptionStoreView)? If App Review requires a specific implementation detail (StoreKit 2, SubscriptionStoreView, or something else), I would really appreciate clarification, as this is not explicitly stated in the rejection. Thank you for your help.

Hello, My new app (App ID: 6757254070) has remained in the “Waiting for Review” status since February 1 (UTC+9). Because the review process seemed to be taking unusually long compared to my previous experiences, I submitted an inquiry (Reference ID: 102812788306), but I have not yet received any response. For additional context, the app was originally submitted on January 23 and remained in the “Waiting for Review” state for eight days. As I was concerned there might have been an issue with the review queue, I canceled the submission and resubmitted the app on February 1. At this point, I am wondering whether the prolonged waiting time is simply due to a heavy backlog in the App Review process. Thank you very much for taking the time to read this. I hope you have a great day.

Hello everyone, I’m facing an issue with In-App Purchases during App Review and would appreciate guidance from anyone who has encountered a similar situation. Context: New iOS/iPadOS app, first submission. One Non-Consumable In-App Purchase. IAP was created, fully configured, and submitted together with the app version. IAP status in App Store Connect: In Review. App includes Restore Purchase and uses standard StoreKit purchase flow. Paid Apps Agreement is accepted. Problem: During Apple’s review, when the reviewer taps the purchase button, a generic error appears: “Purchase failed. An error occurred, please try again.” Apple rejected the app under Guideline 2.1 – Performance – App Completeness, stating that the IAP shows a bug. What seems to be happening: The IAP itself is still in review and therefore not fully active, which causes the purchase attempt to fail. However, the app cannot be approved because the purchase fails, creating a circular dependency: App cannot be approved because IAP purchase fails. IAP cannot work because the app is not approved yet. According to Apple documentation, IAPs are tested in the sandbox during review and should not require separate approval to function, so I’m unsure what additional step is required. Questions: Is there any special configuration needed to make first-time IAPs work during review? Should Apple reviewers be able to complete sandbox purchases even if the IAP status is “In Review”? Is there a recommended workaround or reviewer instruction to avoid this deadlock? Any insights or real-world experience would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Hi, Our app (Tenkobo) received a rejection notice after review due to the fact that we use Gemini AI since 3 builds ago. Since then, we have been improving the disclosure of the data we collect, explicitly stating all the data, introducing a new feature that checks granular consent and syncs consent state for the user to the backend, and controls for whether to send to the Gemini API service for that feature depending on consent state for the user. Moreover, this feature is a premium add-on to a module that already does most things locally on the device and sends to our cloud infrastructure to allow storage and sync when users use multiple devices. It is a multi-platform app. However, despite every improvement, we keep getting the same Rejection reason that "The issues we identified still need your attention. I have asked for help or even that the rejection reason be more specific, but nothing. I have send pictures, and in this last rejection about 8 hours ago, I had to reply with a video showing that what they are asking for is already there. Why does the system work like this? It is frustrating, especially if a development team needs to be guessing how much is too much. We feel we are now close to removing the feature completely out of frustration, and it is very useful feature for our users based on the feedback we received from the android users (the android app has been live since about 6 weeks ago.) Please, what else can we do? We have requested a review meeting with App Review, the entire product plans are now on the verge of being irredeemably disrupted, and the company could go bankrupt just because our reviewer does not deem it fit to tell us exactly what they are expecting to see. Anyone with experience in this area should kindly provide some advise on what to do now. Thank you.

I have a desktop application developed in SwiftUI that shows property locations on the map. That's NOT the main feature. IF you give the application permission to access your location, the blue dot will appear on the map. If you don't, the blue user dot won't appear. That's the only difference with location services. In other words, the application has no use of user's current position beyond showing it on the map. Since it's just the matter of showing or not showing the blue dot on the map, the application doesn't really need to use the location service. Anyway, the reviewer is talking about something else by rejecting the application in two aspects. Guideline 5.1.1 - Legal - Privacy - Data Collection and Storage Guideline 5.1.5 - Legal - Privacy - Location Services As I said earlier, the application only wants to show the blue dot on the map so that you can see your property locations relative to your current location. In code, it's something like the following. Map(position: $propertyViewModel.mapPosition) { ForEach(propertyViewModel.properties) { property in Annotation("", coordinate: CLLocationCoordinate2D(latitude: property.lat, longitude: property.lon)) { ... } } UserAnnotation() } So I'm hit with two rejection reasons with this one line. UserAnnotation() And the reviewer is talking about something like the app is not functional when Location Services are disabled. To resolve this issue, please revise the app so that the app is fully functional without requiring the user to enable Location Services. Well, I can remove the UserAnnotation() line if I want to put this application through the review process. Nothing will become dysfunctional, though, if you decide to reject permission request. So would you remove it or would you play along with this reviewer if you were me? It's been three or four days since rejection. As you can imagine, the reviewer doesn't bother to answer as to What are the exact coordinates that the application has allegedly collected What won't work as a result of location permission request refusal. This isn't the first time I get my app rejected. I've probably had 150 to 200 of them rejected in the past 15 years. And just because a reviewer rejects your app for a bizarre reason, would you give in? Remove this feature and that feature because the reviewer is incompetent such that he or she makes his or her decision based on imagination? What do you think?

ASO often feels like a constant uphill battle for indie iOS devs - the rules keep shifting, results are unpredictable, and competing with big-budget apps can be discouraging. Has anyone here actually figured out what truly works for indie apps, or is ASO just a never-ending grind we all face?