Apple Pulls Cal AI From App Store Over Deceptive Billing Design and In-App Purchase Violations

Apple briefly removed Cal AI, the MyFitnessPal-owned calorie-counting app, from the App Store after what Apple told TechCrunch were “multiple violations” of its rules around purchases and billing design.

“TechCrunch reports on why Apple removed Cal AI from the App Store over what it described as “multiple rule violations”

9to5Mac

TechCrunch reported that the app had attempted to skirt Apple’s in-app purchase guidelines and had also employed “manipulative tactics,” and that the developer “has since addressed the issues, and the app has returned to Apple’s App Store.”

9to5Mac

The episode began with a removal that “made the rounds on social media last week,” and 9to5Mac added that users on X noticed Cal AI had been removed “just over a month after its acquisition by MyFitnessPal for an undisclosed amount.”

Apple’s position, as described by TechCrunch, was that the brief takedown was due to violations including “bypassing Apple’s in-app purchase flow” and “deceptive billing design.”

Apple also said the app violated its rules by using an embedded in-app payment flow through a third-party service, “in this case, Stripe,” to unlock access to digital goods.

In response to the removal, Cal AI returned to the store and 9to5Mac reported it is now “#4 in the Health & Fitness top charts,” two spots above MyFitnessPal’s main app.

The Cal AI case unfolded against the backdrop of Apple’s App Store policy changes following a court ruling in the lawsuit brought against Apple by Epic Games, which TechCrunch said allowed “U.S.-based developers to link out to external payment systems.”

TechCrunch emphasized that, even with that change, “In most cases, however, apps are still required to offer Apple’s in-app purchase option alongside any external link,” and it specified that “Cal AI does not qualify for this exception” because it is not a “reader” app.

MacRumors

TechCrunch described how Apple’s App Store Guidelines permit external payment links but still require IAP alongside them, and it framed the takedown as enforcement of that requirement.

Apple told TechCrunch that Cal AI violated “App Review Guideline 3.1.1,” which “requires that IAP be offered alongside the external link,” and Apple said the app removed IAP as an option for users during checkout.

The app’s billing presentation was also central to Apple’s explanation: TechCrunch said the paywall “displayed the weekly calculated pricing more prominently than the actual amount the user would be billed,” and it also included “a toggle for a free trial that obscured information about the subscription’s automatic renewal.”

9to5Mac echoed that Apple’s issues were not limited to the new off-App Store subscription flow, noting that Apple said the app broke guidelines including “Guideline 3.1.1, Guideline 3.1.2c, and Guideline 5.6, and it also pointed to the free trial toggle that obscured automatic renewal.

Apple’s explanation for the takedown went beyond external payments and focused on what it called “deceptive billing design” and “manipulative tactics,” according to TechCrunch.

“Apple’s recent crackdown on the MyFitnessPal-owned Cal AI food-logging app demonstrates that the tech giant is still enforcing its strict App Store rules around the use of external payments”

TechCrunch

TechCrunch said Apple identified violations of “Guideline 3.1.2c” for deceptive billing practices, describing a paywall that “displayed the weekly calculated pricing more prominently than the actual amount the user would be billed.”

It also said the paywall included “a toggle for a free trial that obscured information about the subscription’s automatic renewal,” and TechCrunch reported that this was part of Apple’s case that the app misled users about what they would be charged.

TechCrunch further said Cal AI violated the Developer Code of Conduct’s guideline 5.6, because the app would prompt users who declined the first subscription offer with “a second, different subscription purchase flow.”

MacRumors added detail on the same theme, saying the app “misled customers by displaying the weekly calculated pricing more prominently than the amount the user would be billed,” and it also described the free trial toggle that did not make automatic renewal clear.

The Tech Buzz characterized Apple’s rationale as “deceptive billing” and “manipulative user tactics,” and it described Apple’s statement to TechCrunch as a “rare public explanation that signals Cupertino isn't letting AI apps slide on the rules that tripped up others before them.”

Across the accounts, Apple’s enforcement also connected to user confusion: TechCrunch said the app had “numerous negative user reviews that accused the app of being a scam because of how it presented its third-party payment options.”

Different outlets framed the removal’s trigger in slightly different ways, even while relying on Apple’s explanation.

TechCrunch reported that there was “concern that Apple had simply removed the app for using web payments instead of Apple’s own in-app purchase,” but it said that “is now permitted,” and it attributed the takedown to “multiple violations” including bypassing IAP and deceptive billing design.

The Tech Buzz

MacRumors similarly addressed that speculation by stating Apple pulled Cal AI “for Deceptive Billing Design, Not External Payments,” and it said Apple told TechCrunch that the app was violating other guidelines beyond payment processing.

9to5Mac also described the initial spark as the app’s “new in-app purchase (IAP) flow that included off-App Store payments,” and it noted that this “quickly sparked comments raising anticompetitive concerns,” even though Apple’s updated App Store terms now allow alternative payment methods.

The same 9to5Mac article then emphasized that Apple’s issues “went beyond just the new off-App Store subscription flow,” and it listed the specific guidelines Apple said were broken: “Guideline 3.1.1, Guideline 3.1.2c, and Guideline 5.6.”

The Tech Buzz, by contrast, foregrounded Apple’s rationale as “deceptive billing” and “manipulative tactics,” stating that Apple removed Cal AI “for what it calls 'deceptive billing' and 'manipulative tactics' - a rare public explanation.”

Across these accounts, the common thread is that Apple said the app bypassed required IAP and used a deceptive paywall, but the emphasis differs between payment-system speculation and Apple’s broader “deceptive billing” narrative.

After Apple’s takedown, Cal AI returned to the App Store once the developer “addressed the issues,” and TechCrunch reported that Apple confirmed the app’s return after its rejection.

“TechCrunch reports on why Apple removed Cal AI from the App Store over what it described as “multiple rule violations”

9to5Mac

TechCrunch also described the episode as a signal that Apple is “still actively policing how developers implement web payments,” even after the Epic ruling loosened earlier restrictions.

9to5Mac

The TechCrunch account tied the enforcement to specific App Review and Developer Code of Conduct rules, including “App Review Guideline 3.1.1,” “Guideline 3.1.2c,” and “guideline 5.6,” and it said Apple identified “deceptive billing practices” and “manipulative tactics” in the app’s paywall and subscription flows.

9to5Mac reported that after a period of unavailability, the app returned and was “now #4 in the Health & Fitness top charts,” reinforcing that a takedown did not permanently remove the app from visibility.

MacRumors added that TechCrunch suggested Cal AI may have been “experimenting to see whether Apple was still enforcing its rules following the court ruling requiring it to allow external payments in apps,” and it said that with the crackdown, Apple made it clear it is policing external payments.

The Tech Buzz framed the broader implication as a warning shot to AI developers, stating “For AI app developers, the Cal AI takedown is a warning shot,” and it argued that Apple is choosing “active curation” of acceptable monetization for the category.

TechCrunch also reported that MyFitnessPal and Cal AI “did not respond to repeated requests for comment,” leaving Apple’s explanation as the primary account of what changed.