{
  "id": 9826637,
  "title": "App Review banned our core mechanic. Notarization let it through - and caught something else",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/09/25/app-review-banned-our-core-mechanic-notarization-let-it-through-and",
  "topic": "tech",
  "section": "Tech",
  "published": "2026-09-25T20:17:37.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Dev.to",
    "slug": "dev-to",
    "url": "https://dev.to/temer/app-review-banned-our-core-mechanic-notarization-let-it-through-and-caught-something-else-3gef"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "In a recent experience distributing their iOS app through an alternative marketplace, the developers learned that not all review processes are created equal. While two out of eight review rounds and six out of eight notarization rounds resulted in rejection, the issues that led to those denials were distinct. This report outlines the key findings from the app's distribution journey.\n\nThe app, named Rate Me, allowed users to upload photos and receive ratings from others. This core mechanic was crucial to the app's functionality. The developers discovered that notarization, the process used for alternative distribution, is not a simple virus scan as commonly believed. Notarization includes automated checks and human review, focusing on platform security, privacy, and device integrity. In the developers' case, the app was rejected twice during notarization rounds due to content-related issues: Guideline 1.2 forbidding rating people based on their appearance, and Guideline 5.1.1(v) requiring full in-app account deletion. Surprisingly, the same content-based issues did not arise during the review rounds with the App Store.\n\nThe developers learned that notarization is more than a simple virus scan; it involves a human reviewer examining the app, including its web pages and login services. In one instance, a reviewer found that the app's sign-in page contained social login buttons (Google and Facebook) without appropriate consent, leading to a rejection under Guideline 4.8. To rectify the issue, the developers added Sign in with Apple as an alternative provider, which resulted in a quick approval.\n\nThe developers compiled a checklist for their first notarization submission, emphasizing the importance of technical honesty in their declarations and providing explanations for any issues that arise. They also noted that notarization review times have significantly improved compared to their initial experiences. While the developers cannot definitively attribute this improvement to Apple's queue or their own account, they have seen a notable reduction in turnaround time after subsequent submissions.\n\nIn conclusion, the developers' experience highlights the importance of understanding the nuances between App Review and notarization, as well as the need for technical honesty in their declarations. By taking these factors into account, developers can navigate the alternative distribution process more effectively and avoid unnecessary delays.",
  "summary": "In an earlier post I described how we distribute our iOS app outside the App Store through AltStore PAL. The most common follow-up question was \"what about review?\". We now have numbers: two App Review rounds and six notarization rounds , two of which ended in rejection. Here is what that looked like. The app is Rate Me: people upload their photos and get 1-10 ratings from other people. That…",
  "key_points": [
    "Notarization process involves human review beyond virus scan",
    "App rejected twice due to content-related issues during notarization",
    "Adding Sign in with Apple resolved sign-in page consent issue"
  ],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}