Post

Replies

Boosts

Views

Activity

Non-consumable IAP app rejected: Pro auto-unlocked for pre-1.0.5 paid users, App Review asks for expired subscription account
Hello everyone, I’m currently stuck in App Review and would appreciate input from anyone who has dealt with a similar situation. App setup iOS app, SwiftUI, StoreKit 2 No user accounts (no login, no username/password, no backend) No subscriptions Monetization model: App was paid before version 1.0.5 Since 1.0.5 the app is free Unlocking full functionality is done via a non-consumable, one-time IAP (“Pro Unlock”) Existing users who bought the app when it was paid are automatically granted Pro access New users get a 24-hour local trial, then must purchase the non-consumable IAP All state is local / device-based, no server There is no concept of an account, subscription renewal, or expired subscription in the app. Rejection from App Review Apple rejected the app with the following message: Guideline 2.1 – Information Needed We are not able to continue our review because we need access to a demo account with an expired subscription to review the entire purchase flow. Please provide a user name and password for a demo account with expired subscriptions in the App Review Information section of App Store Connect. This is where I’m confused. Why this doesn’t seem applicable The app does not use subscriptions The app does not have user accounts The IAP is non-consumable, one-time purchase Trials are not subscription-based and expire automatically on-device There is no “expired subscription account” that could exist technically StoreKit testing is done via sandbox Apple IDs, but those are: not app-level accounts not usernames/passwords inside the app only used in the Apple purchase sheet Additional complication Because old paid users are automatically recognized as “Pro” via AppTransaction.originalAppVersion, the Unlock Pro button is hidden once Pro is active. This means that on some devices (including mine), the purchase sheet never appears anymore because the app already considers the user entitled. This might be confusing App Review and causing them to assume the app uses subscriptions and gated accounts. Questions Has anyone seen App Review request a demo account with expired subscription for an app that uses only non-consumable IAPs? Is there a correct way to respond other than explicitly explaining that: there are no accounts there are no subscriptions StoreKit sandbox Apple IDs are sufficient? Would providing a sandbox Apple ID (clearly labeled as such) help, or is that inappropriate since Apple reviewers already have sandbox accounts? Is this likely just a misclassification by App Review, or is there something in Apple’s guidelines that I’m missing? What I’ve already tried Explained the purchase flow step-by-step in App Review notes Clarified that the Paid Apps Agreement is already accepted Clarified that Pro access is automatically granted to previous paid users Verified that the IAP is correctly configured and available in App Store Connect At this point I’m unsure whether I should: escalate / push back on the incorrect assumption, or modify the UI to make the purchase path permanently visible even for entitled users Any insight from people who have gone through similar review issues would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
1
0
55
2d