We’ve identified an issue in our app where, upon clicking the "Call Customer Center" button, users are unexpectedly shown a logo and message option on a native pop-up window. However, this wasn't the case before, and it should only display a phone number to dial, which was given inside our code. This is incorrect and misleading for our users, as: We are a Canadian-based service and have no affiliation with US messaging chat. The messaging feature was never enabled or intended for our app. Our app should only initiate a phone call to our customer support center — no messages or branding from third parties should appear

I no longer have an app on the store. I do have an apple books account on the same login but there's no need for me to have the appstore connect account or whatever you call it and keep getting notifications when I don't have an app, don't want an app, will never do another app.

I am asking about the apple Sign in implementation. ▫️ problems eas local build or test flight, I get a “Could not complete registration” message. When I check the console, I see the following error message. akd SRP authentication with server failed! Error: Error Domain=com.apple.AppleIDAuthSupport Code=2 UserInfo={NSDescription=<private>, Status=<private>} ▫️ Assumption ・Developed with Expo ・"expo-apple-authentication":"^7.2.4" ・Two apps are developed at the same time, using supabase, firebase, but both have the same error ・On Xcode, on app ids, apple sign in capability is turned on ・Service ids is set to domain, return url ・keys is created ・Internal test of testfligt is set to deliver

On Wednesday, June 18, 2025, Sign in with Apple was impacted by a configuration issue which affected some developer accounts that created new app or Services ID configurations, or edited existing configurations, resulting in the following errors: invalid_client response error returned by the authentication, token validation/revocation, and user migration requests "Sign Up Not Completed" (or equivalent) error presented from the Authentication Services framework. On Monday, June 23, 2025, this issue was resolved. Please retry the Sign in with Apple flows in your Sign in with Apple enabled apps and websites to confirm your developer account configuration has been fixed. Please let us know if you can still reproduce this issue with your developer account. If so, follow the steps outlined in the post below: Gathering required information for troubleshooting Sign in with Apple authorization and token requests https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/762831 Finally, reply (not comment) with your Feedback ID on either of the posts below: https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/789011 https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/789132 Cheers, Paris X Pinkney |  WWDR | DTS Engineer

We have an app that has failed during the app review for the Japanese market but has been accepted in several other markets successfully. We need the user's name in native Katakana format as we need it to be displayed in our restaurant Point of Sale systems for workers to be able to read and understand. We use 'Sign up with Apple', but when doing so, if this returns an anglicised given and family name, we have to request the customer supply their Katakana format name so that our in-store systems and staff can process and fulfil their orders. When the App Review process automatically tests the app, it uses "Apple John" as a customer's name. Since this is not a Japanese name, we ask for it again in the correct format, or we cannot allow the user to register. This contravenes Apple's rules, and thus, our app is rejected. If the Apple identity used belonged to a user more typical of the target market, it would work as required. Does anyone else have this issue, and how did you work around it? Tim

Hello I'm using Auth0 for handling auth in my app When the user wants to sign in, it will show the auth system pop-up And when the user wants to log out it shows the same pop-up My issue is how to replace the Sign In text in this pop-up to show Sign Out instead of Sign In when the user wants to sign out?

I added a feature to my app that retrieves only app settings (no personal data) from my API hosted on Cloudflare Workers. The app does not send, collect, track, or share any user data, and I do not store or process any personal information. Technical details such as IP address, user agent, and device information may be automatically transmitted as part of the internet protocol when the request is made, but my app does not log or use them. Cloudflare may collect this information. Question: Does this count as “data collection” for App Store Connect purposes, or can I select “No Data Collected”?

Hi, My app keeps getting rejected during App Review with the reason that the Sign in with Apple button is unresponsive. However, I have tested it extensively on: • A real iPad Pro (iPadOS 18.3.2) • Multiple Xcode simulators • Including an iPad Air 5th simulator (18.3.1) In all of these cases, the button works correctly. The reviewer mentioned they are using an iPad Air 5th running iPadOS 18.3.2, which I cannot find as a simulator in Xcode, nor do I have access to this exact device around me. I’m using standard SignInWithAppleButton code with no custom wrappers or UI layers on top. Here is the relevant snippet: GeometryReader { geometry in ZStack { Color.black.opacity(0.3) .ignoresSafeArea() .onTapGesture { prompt = "" showChat = false } VStack(alignment: .leading, spacing: 0){ switch purchaseManager.hasAISubscription { case 1: HStack{ } case 2: HStack{ } case 3: HStack{ } default: HStack{ } } Divider() ScrollView { VStack(alignment: .leading, spacing: 8) { ForEach(filteredChatHistory, id: \.id) { chat in } } Spacer() } .frame(maxHeight: geometry.size.height * 0.7) .defaultScrollAnchor(.bottom) .padding() Divider() HStack(){ if httpManager.isLoggedIn && purchaseManager.hasAISubscription > 0 { } } else if purchaseManager.hasAISubscription == 0{ } else{ Spacer() SignInWithAppleButton(.continue){ request in request.requestedScopes = [.email] } onCompletion: { result in switch result { case .success(let auth): switch auth.credential { case let appleCredential as ASAuthorizationAppleIDCredential: let userID = appleCredential.user saveToKeychain(userID, for: "com.xing-fu.aireader.apple.userid") if let identityTokenData = appleCredential.identityToken, let identityToken = String(data: identityTokenData, encoding: .utf8) { Task { //后端认证过,才算登录成功 await httpManager.loginWithApple(identityToken) } } break default: break } case .failure(let error): print("error") } } .frame(maxWidth: 350, maxHeight: 40) .padding() .cornerRadius(10) Spacer() } } } .overlay( // 边框 RoundedRectangle(cornerRadius: 10) .stroke(Color.g2, lineWidth: 4) ) .background(Color(UIColor.systemBackground)) .cornerRadius(10) // 圆角 .shadow(color: Color.black.opacity(0.1), radius: 5, x: 0, y: 5) .frame(width: geometry.size.width * 0.8) .onDisappear{ httpManager.alertMessage = nil } } }

I’ve been running into an issue for over a day when trying to create a Sign in with Apple key. Each time I attempt to download it, I’m redirected to a page that displays an error and provides no further guidance. I’ve contacted Support and haven’t yet received a reply. I’ve also tried across multiple browsers (Chrome, Safari, Firefox), including incognito modes. Any ideas on how to resolve this? We’re currently stuck and would appreciate guidance.

We are using SecPKCS12Import C API in our application to import a self seigned public key certificate. We tried to run the application for the first time on Tahoe and it failed with OSStatus -26275 error. The release notes didn't mention any deprecation or change in the API as per https://developer.apple.com/documentation/macos-release-notes/macos-26-release-notes. Are we missing anything? There are no other changes done to our application.

In a project I was using Local Authentication to authenticate a user. When I got a request to support smartcard/PIV token authentication (which Local Authentication does not support), I had to switch to Authorization Services, which works pretty. There's only one issue I have. Local Authentication's evaluatePolicy:localizedReason:reply: requires a reason in the form "&lt;appname&gt;" is trying to &lt;localized reason&gt;. The app is currently translated into 41 languages and I would like to use the localized strings for the AuthorizationEnvironment of Authorization Services as well. The problem is that Local Authentication prefixes the localized string with something like "&lt;appname&gt;" is trying to and Authorization Services does not do this. Is there a way to get this prefix from somewhere so I can manually add it to the (partially) localized string? Any help would be highly appreciated. Thank you, Marc

Hi, preivously on appleid.apple.com, navigating to this page on safari would show the in-app modal to continue with Apple. Now with account.apple.com, this is not the case. We are not seeing the in-app modal to continue with Apple

Is there a way (in code or on the OAuth2 server/webpage) to specify the desired window size when using ASWebAuthenticationSession on macOS? I haven't found anything, and we would prefer the window to be narrower. For one of our users, the window is even stretched to the full screen width which looks completely broken…

I regularly see folks confused by the difference in behaviour of app groups between macOS and iOS. There have been substantial changes in this space recently. While much of this is now covered in the official docs (r. 92322409), I’ve updated this post to go into all the gory details. If you have questions or comments, start a new thread with the details. Put it in the App & System Services > Core OS topic area and tag it with Code Signing and Entitlements. Oh, and if your question is about app group containers, also include Files and Storage. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Working Towards Harmony There are two styles of app group ID: iOS-style app group IDs start with group., for example, group.eskimo1.test. macOS-style app group IDs start with your Team ID, for example, SKMME9E2Y8.eskimo1.test. This difference has been the source of numerous weird problems over the years. Starting in Feb 2025, iOS-style app group IDs are fully supported on macOS for all product types [1]. If you’re writing new code that uses app groups, use an iOS-style app group ID. If you have existing code that uses a macOS-style app group ID, consider how you might transition to the iOS style. IMPORTANT The Feb 2025 changes aren’t tied to an OS release but rather to a Developer website update. For more on this, see Feb 2025 Changes, below. [1] If your product is a standalone executable, like a daemon or agent, wrap it in an app-like structure, as explained in Signing a daemon with a restricted entitlement. iOS-Style App Group IDs An iOS-style app group ID has the following features: It starts with the group. prefix, for example, group.eskimo1.test. You allocate it on the Developer website. This assigns the app group ID to your team. You then claim access to it by listing it in the App Groups entitlement (com.apple.security.application-groups) entitlement. That claim must be authorised by a provisioning profile [1]. The Developer website will only let you include your team’s app group IDs in your profile. For more background on provisioning profiles, see TN3125 Inside Code Signing: Provisioning Profiles. iOS-style app group IDs originated on iOS with iOS 3.0. They’ve always been supported on iOS’s child platforms (iPadOS, tvOS, visionOS, and watchOS). On the Mac: They’ve been supported by Mac Catalyst since that technology was introduced. Likewise for iOS Apps on Mac. Starting in Feb 2025, they’re supported for other Mac products. [1] Strictly speaking macOS does not require that, but if your claim is not authorised by a profile then you might run into other problems. See Entitlements-Validated Flag, below. macOS-Style App Group IDs A macOS-style app group ID has the following features: It should start with your Team ID [1], for example, SKMME9E2Y8.eskimo1.test. It can’t be explicitly allocated on the Developer website. Code that isn’t sandboxed doesn’t need to claim the app group ID in the App Groups entitlement. [2] To use an app group, claim the app group ID in the App Groups entitlement. The App Groups entitlement is not restricted on macOS, meaning that this claim doesn’t need to be authorised by a provisioning profile [3]. However, if you claim an app group ID that’s not authorised in some way, you might run into problems. More on that later in this post. If you submit an app to the Mac App Store, the submission process checks that your app group IDs make sense, that is, they either start with your Team ID (macOS style) or are assigned to your team (iOS style). [1] This is “should” because, historically, macOS has not actually required it. However, that’s now changing, with things like app group container protection. [2] This was true prior to macOS 15. It may still technically be true in macOS 15 and later, but the most important thing, access to the app group container, requires the entitlement because of app group container protection. [3] Technically it’s a validation-required entitlement, something that we’ll come back to in the Entitlements-Validated Flag section. Feb 2025 Changes On 21 Feb 2025 we rolled out a change to the Developer website that completes the support for iOS-style app group IDs on the Mac. Specifically, it’s now possible to create a Mac provisioning profile that authorises the use of an iOS-style app group ID. Note This change doesn’t affect Mac Catalyst or iOS Apps on Mac, which have always been able to use iOS-style app group IDs on the Mac. Prior to this change it was possible to use an iOS-style app group ID on the Mac but that might result in some weird behaviour. Later sections of this post describe some of those problems. Of course, that information is now only of historical interest because, if you’re using an iOS-style app group, you can and should authorise that use with a provisioning profile. We also started seeding Xcode 16.3, which has since been release. This is aware of the Developer website change, and its Signing & Capabilities editor actively encourages you to use iOS-style app groups IDs in all products. Note This Xcode behaviour is the only option for iOS and its child platforms. With Xcode 16.3, it’s now the default for macOS as well. If you have existing project, enable this behaviour using the Register App Groups build setting. Finally, we updated a number of app group documentation pages, including App Groups entitlement and Configuring app groups. Crossing the Streams In some circumstances you might need to have a single app that accesses both an iOS- and a macOS-style app group. For example: You have a macOS app. You want to migrate to an iOS-style app group ID, perhaps because you want to share an app group container with a Mac Catalyst app. But you also need to access existing content in a container identified by a macOS-style app group ID. Historically this caused problems (FB16664827) but, as of Jun 2025, this is fully supported (r. 148552377). When the Developer website generates a Mac provisioning profile for an App ID with the App Groups capability, it automatically adds TEAM_ID.* to the list of app group IDs authorised by that profile (where TEAM_ID is your Team ID). This allows the app to claim access to every iOS-style app group ID associated with the App ID and any macOS-style app group IDs for that team. This helps in two circumstances: It avoids any Mac App Store Connect submission problems, because App Store Connect can see that the app’s profile authorises its use of all the it app group IDs it claims access to. Outside of App Store — for example, when you directly distribute an app using Developer ID signing — you no longer have to rely on macOS granting implicit access to macOS-style app group IDs. Rather, such access is explicitly authorised by your profile. That ensures that your entitlements remain validated, as discussed in the Entitlements-Validated Flag, below. A Historical Interlude These different styles of app group IDs have historical roots: On iOS, third-party apps have always used provisioning profiles, and thus the App Groups entitlement is restricted just like any other entitlement. On macOS, support for app groups was introduced before macOS had general support for provisioning profiles [1], and thus the App Groups entitlement is unrestricted. The unrestricted nature of this entitlement poses two problems. The first is accidental collisions. How do you prevent folks from accidentally using an app group ID that’s in use by some other developer? On iOS this is easy: The Developer website assigns each app group ID to a specific team, which guarantees uniqueness. macOS achieved a similar result by using the Team ID as a prefix. The second problem is malicious reuse. How do you prevent a Mac app from accessing the app group containers of some other team? Again, this isn’t an issue on iOS because the App Groups entitlement is restricted. On macOS the solution was for the Mac App Store to prevent you from publishing an app that used an app group ID that’s used by another team. However, this only works for Mac App Store apps. Directly distributed apps were free to access app group containers of any other app. That was considered acceptable back when the Mac App Store was first introduced. That’s no longer the case, which is why macOS 15 introduced app group container protection. See App Group Container Protection, below. [1] I’m specifically talking about provisioning profiles for directly distributed apps, that is, apps using Developer ID signing. Entitlements-Validated Flag The fact that the App Groups entitlement is unrestricted on macOS is, when you think about it, a little odd. The purpose of entitlements is to gate access to functionality. If an entitlement isn’t restricted, it’s not much of a gate! For most unrestricted entitlements that’s not a problem. Specifically, for both the App Sandbox and Hardened Runtime entitlements, those are things you opt in to, so macOS is happy to accept the entitlement at face value. After all, if you want to cheat you can just not opt in [1]. However, this isn’t the case for the App Groups entitlement, which actually gates access to functionality. Dealing with this requires macOS to walk a fine line between security and compatibility. Part of that solution is the entitlements-validated flag. When a process runs an executable, macOS checks its entitlements. There are two categories: Restricted entitlements must be authorised by a provisioning profile. If your process runs an executable that claims a restricted entitlement that’s not authorised by a profile, the system traps. Unrestricted entitlements don’t have to be authorised by a provisioning profile; they can be used by any code at any time. However, the App Groups entitlement is a special type of unrestricted entitlement called a validation-required entitlement. If a process runs an executable that claims a validation-required entitlement and that claim is not authorised by a profile, the system allows the process to continue running but clears its entitlements-validated flag. Some subsystems gate functionality on the entitlements-validated flag. For example, the data protection keychain uses entitlements as part of its access control model, but refuses to honour those entitlements if the entitlement-validated flag has been cleared. Note If you’re curious about this flag, use the procinfo subcommand of launchctl to view it. For example: % sudo launchctl procinfo `pgrep Test20230126` … code signing info = valid … entitlements validated … If the flag has been cleared, this line will be missing from the code signing info section. Historically this was a serious problem because it prevented you from creating an app that uses both app groups and the data protection keychain [2] (r. 104859788). Fortunately that’s no longer an issue because the Developer website now lets you include the App Groups entitlement in macOS provisioning profiles. [1] From the perspective of macOS checking entitlements at runtime. There are other checks: The App Sandbox is mandatory for Mac App Store apps, but that’s checked when you upload the app to App Store Connect. Directly distributed apps must be notarised to pass Gatekeeper, and the notary service requires that all executables enable the hardened runtime. [2] See TN3137 On Mac keychain APIs and implementations for more about the data protection keychain. App Groups and the Keychain The differences described above explain a historical oddity associated with keychain access. The Sharing access to keychain items among a collection of apps article says: Application groups When you collect related apps into an application group using the App Groups entitlement, they share access to a group container, and gain the ability to message each other in certain ways. You can use app group names as keychain access group names, without adding them to the Keychain Access Groups entitlement. On iOS this makes a lot of sense: The App Groups entitlement is a restricted entitlement on iOS. The Developer website assigns each iOS-style app group ID to a specific team, which guarantees uniqueness. The required group. prefix means that these keychain access groups can’t collide with other keychain access groups, which all start with an App ID prefix (there’s also Apple-only keychain access groups that start with other prefixes, like apple). However, this didn’t work on macOS [1] because the App Groups entitlement is unrestricted there. However, with the Feb 2025 changes it should now be possible to use an iOS-style app group ID as a keychain access group on macOS. Note I say “should” because I’ve not actually tried it (-: Keep in mind that standard keychain access groups are protected the same way on all platforms, using the restricted Keychain Access Groups entitlement (keychain-access-groups). [1] Except for Mac Catalyst apps and iOS Apps on Mac. Not Entirely Unsatisfied When you launch a Mac app that uses app groups you might see this log entry: type: error time: 10:41:35.858009+0000 process: taskgated-helper subsystem: com.apple.ManagedClient category: ProvisioningProfiles message: com.example.apple-samplecode.Test92322409: Unsatisfied entitlements: com.apple.security.application-groups Note The exact format of that log entry, and the circumstances under which it’s generated, varies by platform. On macOS 13.0.1 I was able to generate it by running a sandboxed app that claims a macOS-style app group ID in the App Groups entitlement and also claims some other restricted entitlement. This looks kinda worrying and can be the source of problems. It means that the App Groups entitlement claims an entitlement that’s not authorised by a provisioning profile. On iOS this would trap, but on macOS the system allows the process to continue running. It does, however, clear the entitlements-validate flag. See Entitlements-Validated Flag for an in-depth discussion of this. The easiest way to avoid this problem is to authorise your app group ID claims with a provisioning profile. If there’s some reason you can’t do that, watch out for potential problems with: The data protection keychain — See the discussion of that in the Entitlements-Validated Flag and App Groups and the Keychain sections, both above. App group container protection — See App Group Container Protection, below. App Group Container Protection macOS 15 introduced app group container protection. To access an app group container without user intervention: Claim access to the app group by listing its ID in the App Groups entitlement. Locate the container by calling the containerURL(forSecurityApplicationGroupIdentifier:) method. Ensure that at least one of the following criteria are met: Your app is deployed via the Mac App Store (A). Or via TestFlight when running on macOS 15.1 or later (B). Or the app group ID starts with your app’s Team ID (C). Or your app’s claim to the app group is authorised by a provisioning profile embedded in the app (D) [1]. If your app doesn’t follow these rules, the system prompts the user to approve its access to the container. If granted, that consent applies only for the duration of that app instance. For more on this, see: The System Integrity Protection section of the macOS Sequoia 15 Release Notes The System Integrity Protection section of the macOS Sequoia 15.1 Release Notes WWDC 2024 Session 10123 What’s new in privacy, starting at 12:23 The above criteria mean that you rarely run into the app group authorisation prompt. If you encounter a case where that happens, feel free to start a thread here on DevForums. See the top of this post for info on the topic and tags to use. Note Prior to the Feb 2025 change, things generally worked out fine when you app was deployed but you might’ve run into problems during development. That’s no longer the case. [1] This is what allows Mac Catalyst and iOS Apps on Mac to work. Revision History 2025-08-12 Added a reference to the Register App Groups build setting. 2025-07-28 Updated the Crossing the Streams section for the Jun 2025 change. Made other minor editorial changes. 2025-04-16 Rewrote the document now that iOS-style app group IDs are fully supported on the Mac. Changed the title from App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Fight! to App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Working Towards Harmony 2025-02-25 Fixed the Xcode version number mentioned in yesterday’s update. 2025-02-24 Added a quick update about the iOS-style app group IDs on macOS issue. 2024-11-05 Further clarified app group container protection. Reworked some other sections to account for this new reality. 2024-10-29 Clarified the points in App Group Container Protection. 2024-10-23 Fleshed out the discussion of app group container protection on macOS 15. 2024-09-04 Added information about app group container protection on macOS 15. 2023-01-31 Renamed the Not Entirely Unsatisfactory section to Not Entirely Unsatisfied. Updated it to describe the real impact of that log message. 2022-12-12 First posted.

As I had mentioned earlier, I was facing two issues after the initial update, but I’m happy to inform you that both of those issues have now been resolved. However, after updating to iOS 26.0 (23A5297m), I’ve started experiencing a new issue related to overheating. Since yesterday, my iPhone has been getting extremely hot while charging. It also became very hot after clicking just a few photos. The same heating issue occurred again today during charging. This problem only started after the latest update. Kindly look into this issue and advise on how to resolve it.

General: Forums subtopic: Privacy & Security > General Forums tag: App Sandbox App Sandbox documentation App Sandbox Design Guide documentation — This is no longer available from Apple. There’s still some info in there that isn’t covered by the current docs but, with the latest updates, it’s pretty minimal (r. 110052019). Still, if you’re curious, you can consult an old copy [1]. App Sandbox Temporary Exception Entitlements archived documentation — To better understand the role of temporary exception entitlements, see this post. Embedding a command-line tool in a sandboxed app documentation Discovering and diagnosing App Sandbox violations (replaces the Viewing Sandbox Violation Reports forums post) Resolving App Sandbox Inheritance Problems forums post The Case for Sandboxing a Directly Distributed App forums post Implementing Script Attachment in a Sandboxed App forums post Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" [1] For example, this one archived by the Wayback Machine.

I’m considering storing some sensitive information in the userID field of a passkey, as described in the createCredentialRegistrationRequest method.(link to method). I'm aware of the largeBlob extension introduced in iOS 17+, but it doesn't meet my needs since I want to create a cross-platform passkey that can be used across various devices — and currently, not many devices support the largeBlob extension. According to W3C documentation, the userID field is not considered private information and can be displayed to the user without requiring a verification process. Based on my understanding, it's also not encrypted, which means it might be accessible with physical access to the device. So here are my questions: How do Apple devices (especially iPhones) handle the userID field in their authenticators? Is it possible to access the userID without user verification, as permitted by the W3C specification? Are there any alternative methods to access the userID value stored in a passkey on Apple devices?

Hi team, if I log into my app on Safari and try to enroll/challenge MFA security key option, I will be able to see this pop-up that gives me the option to pick either passkeys or external security keys However, my team member who's using the same version of safari, can only see the external security key option Why is this?

we develop extension "Autofill Credential Provider" function for passkey. 1.first step registe passkey 2.second step authenticate with passkey step 1 &amp; step 2 has finished and run success with provideCredentialWithoutUserInteraction. But we want to prepare our interface for use to input password and select passkey what the want. however the func prepareInterfaceToProvideCredential in ASCredentialProviderViewController does call? what i missed? how can i do it?

Hello, I am currently process of migrating an app from Team A to Team B and attempting to generate transfer identifiers using the migration endpoint: POST https://appleid.apple.com/auth/usermigrationinfo. Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded However, I am consistently receiving an { "error": "access_denied" } response. [Current Configuration] Team A (Source): Primary App ID: com.example.primary Grouped App IDs: com.example.service (Services ID for Web) com.example.app (App ID for iOS - The one being transferred) All identifiers are under the same App Group. Team B (Destination): New App ID and Key created. [Steps Taken] Created a Client Secret (JWT) using Team A's Key ID and Team ID. The sub (subject) in the JWT is set to the Primary App ID of Team A. Requesting with client_id (Primary App ID), client_secret (JWT), and user_token. [Questions] 1. App Group Impact: Does the fact that the App being transferred is a Grouped App ID (not the Primary) affect the usermigrationinfo request? Should I use the Primary App ID or the specific Grouped App ID as the client_id? 2. Ungrouping Safety: If I need to ungroup the App ID from the Primary App ID to resolve this: Will existing users still be able to sign in without issues? Is there any risk of changing the sub (user identifier) that the app receives from Apple? Will this cause any immediate service interruption for the live app? Any insights on why access_denied occurs in this Primary-Grouped configuration would be greatly appreciated.