Hello everyone, Phillip Shoemaker, former head of Apple's App Review team, reports an 800–1000% surge in DPLA 3.2(f) terminations — increasingly initiated by App Review (not the Fraud team), with an accumulation of too many Guideline 1.1 rejections as the single biggest trigger. AI content-generation apps are hit hardest. He calls this the "approval-as-trap": a reviewer-approved build is later read against the developer as "hiding the problem," while the 3.2(f) notice names no specific violation. (https://phillipshoemaker.substack.com/p/apple-approved-the-fix-then-it-called))) This is not hypothetical — it happened to me. On October 30, my account received a Pending Termination Notice under DPLA 3.2(f) — my AI photo/video app was removed, earnings paused, and transfers disabled. This came about one week after my last review submission, while the build was still in review and with no changes made to the app. Timeline Mid-October, Rejection 1 (1.1): App "includes templates for generating content showing people making intimate contact (hugging, kissing)." Instruction: "remove all templates for generating content showing intimate contact." I removed the templates and resubmitted. Next day, Rejection 2 (1.1): App metadata (screenshots) "includes terms or images that reference objectionable content." No specific screenshot or element named. I revised all screenshots, removed disturbing imagery, added server-side content filters and a user-report function, and resubmitted with an explanation. The build went into review — it was never approved. Importantly, the app's preview images and content templates had remained unchanged across multiple previously-approved versions. The same assets had passed review before; nothing in them was altered to "evade" anything. October 30, 3.2(f) notice: No new submission and no changes to the app had been made since the last review cycle. The notice gave no specific submission, screenshot, template, or date — only that submissions "repeatedly violated the Guidelines in an attempt to evade the review process" and that prior violations "remain unresolved." Earnings were frozen and transfers disabled. The contradiction The 3.2(f) appeal asks me to explain "the issues we identified" — yet the notice identifies nothing specific. I addressed every 1.1 rejection I was given. The build was still in review, with no further changes, when the termination arrived. Now those same rejections — and assets that had passed review in multiple prior versions — are being read as "evasion," with no concrete evidence of misconduct. To be explicit: my app contains no hidden features, no concealed functionality, and no content that violates Apple's AI generation policies. Every feature is visible and described in the metadata; the AI generation pipeline uses standard, publicly-documented moderation filters. There is nothing to "hide." Core demands Provide specific evidence — which submission, screenshot, or template constitutes the fraud. Restore my account and re-list the app — reverse the 3.2(f) termination and removal, since no specific misconduct was identified and no changes were made after the last review. Lift the payment hold pending the appeal outcome. Don't retroactively reclassify approved assets — preview images and templates that passed review in multiple prior versions should not later be called "evasion" without new evidence. Make 1.1 rejections specific so developers don't accumulate a "pattern" by guessing. I support App Store safety. The issue is due process: when a build still in review — with no changes made — and assets previously approved multiple times can be reclassified as "evasion," while the termination notice names no specific violation, there is no way to defend oneself. Has anyone else received a 3.2(f) notice while a build was in review or after multiple approvals? What worked?