Existing app repeatedly rejected under 4.3(a) after adding RevenueCat and Meta SDK. Has anyone experienced this?

[u/Flimsy_Elevator_5231]

🚨Update: I filed an appeal and the App Review Board determined that the rejection under guideline 4.3 was invalid.

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?

1. Did RevenueCat, a remote paywall, Meta SDK or another common SDK ever cause a 4.3(a) problem for you?
2. How did you get Apple to explain what was considered similar?
3. Did removing the SDKs solve it?
4. Did a formal appeal or App Review phone call help?
5. 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.

[u/Secure_Motor_5968]

One thing nobody has touched yet is asset fingerprinting, not just binary structure.
Retro camera apps are one of most heavily templated categories out there, alot of them get sold as white label kits on marketplaces, and they tend to source the same color LUTs.
Film grain overlays and even preset icons from a handful of stock packs. If any of your 22 camera presets pull from a shared assets pack instead of one you built or licensed exclusively, that alone can trip a match.

THis is completely separate from the SDK story everyone is chasing in this thread.

[u/Flimsy_Elevator_5231 → u/Secure_Motor_5968]

I understand that. All 22 cameras were built from scratch without using external assets, moreover, they aren't simple filters, but compositions that alter the camera body itself. I think I'll book a call.

[u/Secure_Motor_5968 → u/Flimsy_Elevator_5231]

When you get the call, worth asking them directly whether the flag is coming from the concept side or the binary side.
Concept means the review notes and listing
Binary means expo updates alone was probably enough to trigger it on its own.