EDIT: I actually did not realize you could reply to app submission rejections directly on appstoreconnect, so I have just done that as well. Hopefully I will be able to resolve this issue! I developed and launched The Broken Screen Prank (https://apps.apple.com/us/app/the-broken-screen-prank/id1541583294)a little over a week ago. It was accepted no problem. Recently, I've tried submitting a minor update, but it was rejected with the message "Your app predominantly features a cracked screen." I assumed the problem area was that my App Screenshot has a picture of the "broken" screen that is displayed during the prank (in the update, I moved the screenshot from the 4th spot to the 3rd location so it would show up as people scrolled through apps while searching). I based this assumption on the following from the Guideline 1.1.6 - Safety - Objectionable Content: Safety When people install an app from the App Store, they want to feel confident that it’s safe to do so—that the app doesn’t contain upsetting or offensive content, won’t damage their device, and isn’t likely to cause physical harm from its use. To address this, I redesigned the App Screenshot so that it included the text \*Does not actually break your phone in the screenshot so that people can be sure the prank does not actually break their phone. After resubmitting the minor update, the app was again rejected with the message "Your app still predominantly features a cracked screen." Can someone please help me figure out how to address this appropriately so I can update my app? Thank you! \- Eric

I am at an utter loss as to why my app update keeps getting rejected :/ I created an app called The Broken Screen Prank (https://apps.apple.com/us/app/the-broken-screen-prank/id1541583294) which I launched a couple of weeks ago. It was accepted no problem. Since then, I've been trying to submit an update (primarily a few simple bug fixes and a rearrangement of the app screenshots), but it's been rejected three times. I've tried to address the issue for the reason that it is being rejected, but apparently I am not addressing it adequately, and I cannot figure out what I am missing. Basically, each rejection comes with more or less the same response--that I should review the Guideline 1.1.6 - Safety - Objectionable Content. This guidelines states: When people install an app from the App Store, they want to feel confident that it’s safe to do so—that the app ... won’t damage their device... The ways I have currently tried to address this is: Requiring the user to accept a UIAlert stating that they understand the app is for entertainment purposes and does not actually break the phone screen Display a disclaimer (stating the same) in both the top of the app description and the app screenshot that shows the broken screen image. Any suggestions on what I could do to fulfill Apple's Safety standard would be greatly appreciated! Sincerely, Confused PS. The latest rejection advised me to "take a look at their attached screenshots for details". I am attaching them here for reference (they are images of my updated 1st and 4th screenshot that would be visible on the App Store). Image 1 - https://iosapps-ssl.itunes.apple.com/itunes-assets/Purple114/v4/ac/db/85/acdb8501-9a93-738b-f0e1-26ef61eb3f84/attachment.30a6fcc1360d7f4d6b9b1749ae277c239eb72d82.jpg?accessKey=1611642420_7883136488812276015_eqKbJ63TsUnFjt%2FAanIwSgNexkIb5Zw7qYwmHKwX59q7J7D3SuBzjBmcOD%2FfYzdmHrqvVkqOzdTOo%2FweNR5qiv7WvhgdfIv%2BOo4%2BOP1HU96mY%2FVQFi8lGjl%2FErAAAITgK0Yzg3jF8BLwdc4It0WHiktnr0YxAihGBRM7VKOcVpT1HV4tIF5ezE7pkh1bauCpYl8LS64LOPWsBmADcEFRsw%3D%3D Image 2 - https://iosapps-ssl.itunes.apple.com/itunes-assets/Purple114/v4/eb/cf/8e/ebcf8e79-ae2d-a3cc-1a80-6a462ec2ab60/attachment.5c8cb1d96027b763efd551027830243d8ba9a009.jpg?accessKey=1611642420_2079805339030861482_3EK3B%2BrmZ0NCRAAlHkvNhDontiTtGpzpdRLBEmvTDXouOTsnTaJesh%2F9k7%2F24zlWBm8xmYhXvcQAQaqmJN11PjA%2BqYiK8qK%2F43uTcqFoPORp1j6qDxFj%2F4qI8xfWWbSPIhbo3u%2BjsyosRMN6dTZbS4BC3Cejkx7iMpi%2Fm2GQ4xpCwLPImZZRA37udzOvxu3vrecnpxQ5Sw2E1QgLxJdPJw%3D%3D PSS: I had asked this question a week or so ago on this forum, but I had made a comment on that post mentioning that I did not realize you could reply directly to App Rejection Messages. However, after doing so, Apple stated they are not able to provide feedback on app concepts or features, and they recommended I ask on the Apple Developer Forums, so here I am once again :)

The App Store has many prank apps (with recent updates). The top two prank apps on the App Store are: The Prank App (last updated: 3d ago) PrankDial - #1 Prank Call App (last updated: 3mo ago) However, the App Store Review Guidelines seem to explain that prank apps are not allowed. It states that apps should not include... False information and features, including inaccurate device data or trick/joke functionality, such as fake location trackers. Stating that the app is “for entertainment purposes” won’t overcome this guideline. Apps that enable anonymous or prank phone calls or SMS/MMS messaging will be rejected. - App Store Review Guidelines, Section 1.1.6 So how does Apple justify the existence and recent updates* of prank apps, when its guidelines appear to prohibit them? *Some may say these apps could have been uploaded prior to Section 1.1.6 taking effect, or they could have been accepted in error. But even if this is true, how can Apple continue to accept updates to these apps that clearly breach current guidelines? FYI, I own a prank app which was originally approved (apparently in error), but whose updates are now continually rejected due to breaching Section 1.1.6. And I'm wondering why these other apps get their updates approved but mine doesn't.

While Google Play's Developer Policy clearly states under their Payments section that "In-app virtual currencies must only be used within the app or game title for which they were purchased", from what I'm seeing, the App Store Review Guidelines do not seem to be as clear on how they stand regarding this topic. Does Apple only allow in-app virtual currencies to be used in the same app that it was purchased in, like Google? If so, what is the reasoning behind this?