Cal AI Removal Exposes Billing Compliance Red Lines
Apple pulled Cal AI, a recently acquired MyFitnessPal property, from the App Store last week over what the company described as "multiple rule violations." The app had introduced a new subscription flow powered by Stripe that attempted to bypass Apple's required in-app purchase system entirely — a move that immediately drew scrutiny despite the fact that external payment options are now permitted in the U.S. following the Epic Games legal settlement.
The removal demonstrates that while the courts have forced Apple to allow external payment links, the company retains significant enforcement leverage over how those alternatives are presented. Cal AI's implementation violated at least three App Review Guidelines:
- Guideline 3.1.1 — failing to offer Apple's in-app purchase system alongside external options for non-reader apps
- Guideline 3.1.2c — presenting misleading billing design that obscured the true subscription cost
- Guideline 5.6 — using manipulative tactics including unclear automatic renewal language
Cal AI corrected the violations and returned to the App Store within days, where it currently ranks #4 in Health & Fitness — two spots above MyFitnessPal itself. The episode suggests the app may have been testing enforcement boundaries in the post-Epic environment. Apple made clear it is still actively policing external payment flows.
What Constitutes a Billing Violation
The Cal AI case offers useful clarity on where Apple draws the line. External payments are permitted, but they cannot completely replace the wiki:in-app-purchase option unless the app qualifies as a "reader app" (streaming content like Netflix or Spotify). For most subscription apps, including fitness and productivity tools, both flows must be offered.
Beyond simply presenting both options, the billing interface itself must meet standards around transparency and non-manipulation:
- The total billed amount must be more prominent than any calculated weekly/daily breakdown
- Automatic renewal terms must be clearly stated, not hidden in toggle labels or fine print
- Users who decline an offer should not immediately encounter a second, alternative subscription prompt
- Free trial flows must make it obvious that a paid subscription will begin after the trial period
Broader Regulatory and Enforcement Context
The Cal AI removal is part of a broader pattern of heightened App Store enforcement and regulatory scrutiny across multiple jurisdictions:
Brazil: Age Verification in Betting Apps
Brazil's Ministry of Justice notified Apple and Google last week over the availability of betting apps accessible to minors. The notification cites violations of the new ECA Digital law, which requires age controls and federal authorization for gambling content. Several of the flagged apps are variants of "Fortune Tiger," a slot-style game that has surged in popularity across Latin America.
Apple recently expanded App Store age assurance tools to Brazil, including a Declared Age Range API and automatic 18+ ratings for apps containing loot boxes. The regulatory letter suggests those measures have not yet fully addressed the enforcement gap around unauthorized gambling apps.
India: Antitrust Case Moves to Final Hearing
India's Competition Commission (CCI) has scheduled a final hearing for May 21 in its antitrust case against Apple over mandatory use of the company's in-app purchase system. Apple has refused to submit financial data requested by the CCI, citing a separate legal challenge to India's penalty calculation framework.
The company faces a potential fine of up to $38 billion if the CCI applies the maximum penalty based on global turnover — though such an outcome is unlikely given precedent in other markets. Apple's refusal to cooperate has prompted the CCI to fast-track the case. The company's argument that it holds only a small share of India's smartphone market is weakening as iPhone penetration has doubled from 4% to 9% in the past two years.
ICE Tracker Injunction
A U.S. federal judge granted a preliminary injunction preventing the Trump administration from pressuring Apple and Google to remove apps that track Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity. The ruling addresses government coercion in content moderation decisions, finding that developers are likely to succeed in their First Amendment argument. The case highlights the political and legal complexity surrounding platform liability for third-party content.
- External payments are allowed, but not exclusive — unless your app qualifies as a reader app, you must offer Apple's IAP alongside any external option, and both must be presented with equal prominence.
- Billing UI is under active review — manipulative design patterns around pricing display, trial terms, and renewal language will trigger removal. The bar for "deceptive" is not limited to outright fraud; it includes any presentation that obscures the true cost or commitment.
- Compliance testing is risky — experimenting with edge-case implementations to see what Apple will allow is more likely to result in removal than clarification. The review process remains opaque, and enforcement can be swift.
Looking Ahead
Apple has also previewed stricter network security requirements coming in iOS 27 and macOS 27, requiring servers to meet updated TLS configuration standards. While the guidance is targeted at IT administrators and device management developers, the underlying pattern — tightening technical and policy requirements across the platform — is consistent with the broader enforcement posture we are seeing in billing, age verification, and content moderation.
The platform is becoming less forgiving of ambiguity. Developers who rely on implicit permissions or untested compliance strategies should expect more frequent and more consequential enforcement actions.