# Guideline 4.3 — spam / clone reply skeleton

Use this when App Review cites **4.3 Spam** (similar apps, duplicate binaries, template spam, “this app is not unique enough,” or a cluster of near-identical listings from one account).

This is a drafting aid. **Not legal advice. No approval guarantee.** If the app is a reskin of a public template, rewrite the product before rewriting the letter.

## What 4.3 is actually testing

Apple is looking for **spam patterns**, not a philosophical debate about originality:

- Multiple binaries that share UI, assets, and copy with tiny keyword swaps
- Apps that replicate a popular app’s look or workflow without new data or audience
- Template generators (including AI site exporters) submitted as many “unique” apps
- Developer accounts that look like a farm: 8 near-identical utilities

Public uniqueness (“we thought of it”) is weaker than **demonstrable** uniqueness: data, workflow, audience, and binary differences a reviewer can see in 60 seconds.

## Decision tree

1. **This binary is a reskin of another app you shipped, or of a public starter.**  
   Do not argue 4.3. Merge, differentiate the IA, replace assets, and change the listing. Then resubmit.
2. **Same category as a giant incumbent, but your data and workflow are yours.**  
   Reply with side-by-side: what the user does here that they cannot do in Generic App X, plus original content sources.
3. **Review confused metadata (name/screenshots) with a clone; the binary is different.**  
   That is also a metadata problem. Align name, screenshots, and first-run experience, then explain the mismatch.
4. **You submitted several micro-apps from one account.**  
   Expect extra scrutiny. Each listing needs a distinct job-to-be-done, not a color swap.

## Differentiation evidence checklist

- [ ] Original copy and icon (not a marketplace template with your hex code)
- [ ] First-run flow unique to this job (not “Sign in with the website”)
- [ ] Data the user cannot get from the wrapped marketing site or from App X
- [ ] Features that are not a thin filter on the same CRUD as your last app
- [ ] Bundle ID, display name, and screenshots that do not look like a series
- [ ] If you used Lovable / Bolt / v0 / Cursor: strip generator chrome, lorem, and identical card layouts

## What not to claim

- “All to-do apps look the same, so 4.3 is unfair.”
- “We changed the color and the name.”
- “AI wrote a unique product.”
- “Please check the Android version.”
- Attacks on the reviewer or on Apple’s process.

## Paste-ready skeleton (fill brackets)

```text
Hello App Review,

Thank you for the 4.3 note on [APP_NAME] ([BUNDLE_ID]).

This submission is not a duplicate or a reskin of another app we publish, and it is not a template with swapped keywords. The job it performs is [ONE_SENTENCE_JOB], for [SPECIFIC_AUDIENCE].

What is unique in this binary (visible on first launch, no account required if possible):
1. [NATIVE_OR_IN_APP_FLOW_1 — what the reviewer taps]
2. [DATA_OR_WORKFLOW_2 — source of content / why it is not App X]
3. [DIFFERENCE_FROM_OUR_OTHER_APPS if the account has more than one listing]

We are not asking for an exception to 4.3. We aligned the name, screenshots, and first-run experience so they show this job only. Screenshots attached: [A], [B], [C].

We remain the account holder and will resubmit from App Store Connect ourselves.

[NAME]
```

## If you also got 4.2

Do not blend the arguments. 4.3 is uniqueness. 4.2 is native value. A unique website wrapper can still fail 4.2. Ship native evidence from the Capacitor checklist, then keep this 4.3 paragraph short.