Avoid App Store metadata rejections for keywords and claims
Metadata is part of review. A build can work perfectly and still be rejected when screenshots, keywords, names, claims, or links describe an experience the app does not provide.
Audit every App Store text and media field against the submitted build. Remove competitor names, unsupported medical or financial claims, unverifiable rankings, hidden feature promises, broken URLs, and screenshots from flows the reviewer cannot reach. AppReviewReady interpretation: use a claim ledger so marketing copy has the same evidence discipline as code.
Treat every public field as review evidence
Apple's review guidelines include metadata accuracy. App Store Connect fields are not separate from the submitted app; they frame what the reviewer expects to find. The app name, subtitle, promotional text, description, keywords, screenshots, previews, support URL, marketing URL, privacy URL, and Review Notes can all create review risk.
Export or copy the current metadata into a table. For each claim, identify the exact screen, feature, entitlement, region, plan, or user role that proves it. If a claim cannot be observed in the submitted build or a supplied reviewer path, rewrite it before submission.
Clean the keyword field before chasing volume
- Remove competitor app names, trademarked brands, and unrelated categories used only for traffic.
- Avoid medical, legal, financial, safety, or government terms the product cannot substantiate.
- Do not use keywords for features gated behind unavailable accounts or future roadmap promises.
- Keep spelling variants and localization choices intentional rather than stuffed.
- Check whether screenshots and title copy already create a clearer signal than risky keyword expansion.
Separate measurable claims from marketing adjectives
A statement such as 'tracks every expense automatically' needs product evidence. Does the build connect to supported institutions, parse receipts, import files, or require manual entry? A phrase such as 'best' or 'official' may create a different burden when no independent or authorized basis exists.
AppReviewReady interpretation: classify each claim as observable feature, comparative claim, regulated claim, availability claim, or roadmap language. Observable feature claims need reviewer steps. Comparative and regulated claims need evidence or removal. Roadmap language belongs outside review metadata.
Make screenshots and previews reachable
- Open each screenshot and write the in-app path that produces that state in the submitted build.
- Confirm user data shown in media is fictional, permitted, and not misleading about available content.
- Remove device frames or captions that imply hardware, integrations, or regions not supported.
- Verify support, marketing, and privacy URLs load without geoblocking, login, or staging certificates.
- Give the reviewer a demo account or Review Notes path for any screenshot that requires seeded data.
Reply by matching the edited field to the app proof
If only metadata changed, do not pretend the binary changed. If the rejection exposed a missing feature or inaccessible flow, submit a corrected build and make the metadata narrower. The goal is consistency, not more persuasive wording.
Metadata correction: Field changed: [name, subtitle, keywords, screenshot, description, URL] Issue addressed: [misleading claim, unavailable feature, broken link, competitor term] New wording/media: [summary] Reviewer proof path: [screen or flow] Build dependency: [none or corrected build]
Primary references checked for this guide
Policy statements above are grounded in the linked Apple documentation. Operational recommendations are AppReviewReady's interpretation and should be tested against your app and the current guideline text.
Run the metadata checklist
Catch unsupported claims before they become a review message.
Open the tool