Guideline 1.1: Objectionable content

Guideline 1.1 - Safety - Objectionable Content

We found that your app includes content that many users would find
objectionable and offensive.

Specifically, your app contains [defamatory or discriminatory content /
realistic depictions of violence / overtly sexual material / false
information], which is not appropriate for the App Store.

What it actually means

Apple rejected something your app shows, not something it does. The rule bars content that is "offensive, insensitive, upsetting, intended to disgust, in exceptionally poor taste, or just plain creepy," and its subsections spell out the categories: defamatory, discriminatory, or mean-spirited content targeting groups or individuals; realistic portrayals of people or animals being killed, maimed, tortured, or abused; content encouraging illegal use of weapons; overtly sexual or pornographic material; inflammatory religious commentary; false information and fake functionality (labelling it "for entertainment purposes" doesn't help); and content that profits from tragedies like conflicts or epidemics.

The key mental shift: Apple holds you responsible for everything the app can display: text you wrote, images you generated, and anything your app's own AI features might produce for a user. "The AI said it, not me" is not a defence Apple accepts.

Why AI-built apps hit this

Two separate traps, both AI-shaped.

First, content you generated while building. AI-written copy, placeholder images, and joke text left in from a prompt session ship with the app, and a reviewer reads them cold, without the context you had. An AI-generated illustration that edges into sexualised or violent territory counts, even if you never looked at it closely.

Second, and more common now, your app has an AI feature of its own: a chatbot, an image generator, a caption writer. Reviewers actively try to make these produce something objectionable. If your app can be prompted into slurs, sexual content, or convincing false information, that output is your app's content, and 1.1 applies as if you'd typed it yourself.

A related rule to know: if users can post or share content in your app, guideline 1.2 separately requires filtering, a way to report offensive content, the ability to block abusive users, and published contact information. Reviewers often cite 1.1 and 1.2 together.

How to fix it

1. Find what the reviewer saw. The rejection usually includes a screenshot or names the content. If it doesn't, reply in Resolution Center and ask. "Could you tell us specifically which content was flagged?" is a normal, answerable question.
2. Remove or rewrite the flagged content. Don't argue that it's not that bad; the reviewer has already decided it is. Delete it or replace it with something unambiguous.
3. Audit everything else the app displays. Read every screen, every placeholder, every AI-generated image, as a stranger would. Ask your AI tool to list all text and images bundled in the app so nothing hides in a screen you forgot.
4. If your app has an AI feature, constrain it. Tell your tool to add content rules to the AI's instructions (no sexual content, no slurs, no realistic violence, no medical or factual claims presented as certain) and test by trying to break it the way a reviewer would.
5. If users can post content, add the 1.2 basics. Ask your tool for a report button, a block function, and content filtering, and put a contact email in the app before you resubmit.

What to write in Resolution Center

Adapt this to what you actually changed; don't send it unmodified:

Hello,

Thank you for the feedback. We've removed the flagged content and
reviewed the rest of the app:

- Removed [the specific content named in the rejection]
- Audited all remaining text and images in the app for content that
  could be considered objectionable
- [If applicable] Added safeguards to our AI feature so it declines to
  generate sexual, violent, discriminatory, or false content
- [If applicable] Added content reporting, user blocking, and filtering
  for user-submitted content

We'd appreciate a second look at the updated build.

Thank you,
[Your name]

How to avoid it next time

Review your app the way Apple does: assume the reviewer will read every word, open every image, and spend five minutes trying to make your AI feature say something terrible. Do that yourself before every submission. When you generate assets or copy with AI, look at each one before it ships. You're accountable for output you never inspected. And if your app lets users create or share anything, build the reporting and blocking tools from day one rather than retrofitting them after a rejection.

Related guides: 4.3: Spam (the other rejection where a reviewer judges your content, not your code) and 5.2.1: Someone else's intellectual property (content that's fine in itself but belongs to someone else).