Image generated by AI
The First Response from Apple
Every founder wants to see one particular message from Apple: “Your app is now available on the App Store.”
Our client did not see that message the first time.They had built a careful, mission-driven mobile app and submitted it to the Apple App Store. Instead of an approval, they received a short but heavy line:
“We found that your app is not in compliance with one or more App Store Review Guidelines.”
Behind that one sentence is a long policy document, Apple’s App Store Review Guidelines. They are detailed, frequently updated, and written in technical and legal terms that most founders don’t naturally think in. And if you are honest, you probably skimmed them at best, rather than reading every line before you started building.
For the client, it felt as if the launch had collapsed. For us, as their data protection and privacy counsel, it was the point where our work truly began. From Apple’s perspective, this type of communication is routine. It contains a list of concerns, references to certain guidelines, and a request for clarification or changes. From the client’s perspective, it raised much larger questions. Were they doubting our legitimacy? Was this the start of repeated rejections? Was there something fundamentally wrong with the product?
Under launch pressure, even a short delay can feel significant. The date of that rejection is now fixed in their memory as “the day everything got stuck.” Legally, however, what they received was not a final decision. It was a notice. And a notice can be answered.
Reframing the Rejection as a Legal Document
The first step was to remove the emotion from the situation. Instead of treating the email as a personal judgment that “Apple does not like the app”, we treated it the same way we would treat a letter from any regulator. Apple’s reviewers are not sitting there giving personal opinions about your product. They follow internal review guidelines and decision trees, and they are essentially working through a checklist and ask does this app clearly meet our rules?
We went through the message carefully and systematically. What exactly is Apple concerned about? Which rules are they referring to? Is there a genuine compliance problem, or has the reviewer misunderstood how the app works? At which points in the user journey might someone, seeing the product for the first time, reasonably misinterpret what is happening?
Once the client understood the email in this way, it no longer felt like a personal attack and instead came across as a request for clearer information and reassurance on risk.
Crafting a Response That Builds Trust
Tone was important. A defensive or emotional reply would not help. We wrote to Apple in the same voice we use when corresponding with regulators in a calm, respectful and precise way.
In this case, Apple had flagged the app under Guideline 5.1.1 (Legal – Data Collection and Storage) because users were required to register with personal information before they could purchase products that were not obviously “account based”. In our response, we first thanked the App Review team and confirmed that we understood the purpose of this guideline: to avoid unnecessary data collection and account barriers.
We then explained, in general terms, why registration was not a cosmetic choice but part of the legal and technical structure of the app. The product needed an account in order to manage user consent properly under privacy laws, to link certain personalised features to a specific user and to ensure that data could be handled securely and consistently across devices. We made clear that the app was not asking for more data than necessary, and that the account requirement was tied to those concrete needs, not used as a gate to unrelated content.
Where Apple’s “Next Steps” suggested changes, we either showed how the current design already aligned with that intent, or indicated where the client was willing to adjust the flow or wording to make the intent clearer for users and reviewers. Rather than simply asserting “we comply”, we walked through the user journey and described how the revised or clarified design would sit comfortably within Guideline 5.1.1.
The underlying message of our response was simple. This is not a casual or disposable app. There is a real team, including legal, standing behind the design choices. If there is a genuine issue, we will address it. If there is confusion, we will clarify it.
The Outcome: From “No” to “Approved”
After our response, the tone of the communication with Apple shifted. The discussion moved away from broad concerns and towards concrete, practical points.
By the next morning, the app was approved. It went live on the App Store and became available for download almost immediately after what had felt, the day before, like a serious setback. In the end, that initial “no” did not delay the launch in any meaningful way. Instead, it forced everyone to be explicit about risk, safeguards and responsibility, and it left the client with a clearer, stronger compliance story going forward.
Lessons for Founders
This experience reflects a pattern we see frequently.
A rejection from Apple is not always a final “no.” Often it means the reviewer does not yet fully understand the product, its data practices or its risk controls. They need more comfort on how users and data are handled. They need to see that someone is accountable if something goes wrong.
Founders are under time pressure and emotionally invested in their apps. In that state, it is difficult to draft a measured, structured response to a platform or regulator. This is one of the moments where legal and compliance support adds real value.
Our role is to translate between two languages. On one side, founders are saying that they want to help people and that they have built a useful product. On the other, reviewers are asking how that product fits within their guidelines and what controls are in place to manage risk.
Why Having a Lawyer Behind Your App Matters
Today, our client’s app is where they wanted it to be. It is live, downloadable and serving real users.
What stands out from this matter is not the initial rejection, but the way the story ended with an approval that recognized the seriousness of the product and the team, including legal, standing behind it.
For founders building serious products, especially those handling personal data or operating in sensitive sectors, having a data protection and privacy lawyer in the background is not only about avoiding problems. It is also about giving platforms and regulators the confidence to say yes.