GENERAL INFORMATION · NOT LEGAL ADVICE · ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE ONLY · JULY 2026
Read this before the sample. “Rowan” is a composite app that does not exist. Its documents, its findings, and its client are invented for illustration. This is not a real review, not a real client, and not about any real company — no actual app’s documents are quoted or characterised anywhere on this page. Nothing here is legal advice, nothing here creates an attorney-client relationship, and none of it is a prediction of what a review of your app would say.
Why publish the whole thing
A written deliverable is difficult to buy sight-unseen, and “written issue spots and considerations” could mean almost anything. So here is the entire document, in the format an actual client receives — the same headings, the same item structure, the same limits section. If the format is not useful to you, you have saved $275 and a week.
If you would rather read about the method than the artifact, the shorter walkthrough covers how each item is built.
Focused Review — Privacy Policy
App Counsel Studio · Dean John Balaes, attorney licensed in Tennessee (BPR No. 037495) · SAMPLE — NOT A REAL MATTER
Client: Rowan Software LLC (invented) · App: Rowan — Habit & Routine Tracker (iOS) · Document reviewed: Privacy Policy dated 14 March 2026 · Delivered: sample
1 · What this document is
A written review of the Privacy Policy identified above, read against what the app’s public App Store listing says about it. It sets out issue spots and considerations: places where the document and the product appear not to line up, and the questions worth resolving. It is not a compliance certification, an audit, or a statement that the document does or does not satisfy any law. It does not rewrite the document.
2 · What was and was not reviewed
Reviewed: the Privacy Policy named above, in the form supplied, and the app’s public store listing including its declared data categories.
Not reviewed, and no view is offered on any of it: the app’s source code, build, backend, or actual data flows; vendor contracts or internal practices; the Terms of Use (covered separately below); any jurisdiction other than Tennessee; anything not contained in the document above.
Everything below therefore rests on the document plus public information. Where a finding depends on a fact only the client’s team can confirm, it is written as a question rather than an assertion.
3 · Summary
The policy is well organised and short, and most of it matches the listing. Four items are raised. Three are questions about facts only the team can settle; one is a mismatch between the policy and the store listing that is visible from outside. Nothing here suggests the document was carelessly written — the gaps are the ordinary kind that appear when a product ships faster than its paperwork.
Items raised: 4. Ordered by section, then by how cheaply each can be resolved. Numbering carries no severity meaning.
4 · Items
Item 1 · Deletion route
What the document says. “You may request deletion of your account and associated data at any time by writing to support@…”
What appears to be the case. The listing indicates the app supports account creation. The policy describes deletion only by email; no in-app route is mentioned in the document.
Why it may matter. This is a promise to users about how deletion happens. Separately, Apple’s published guidance for apps that support account creation addresses in-app deletion and speaks to support-only flows. If an in-app route exists, the policy does not describe it; if it does not exist, the policy is describing the only route there is.
The question back to you. Does the app offer an in-app deletion path today, and if so, should the policy describe it rather than pointing only to email?
Item 2 · “Anonymous” analytics against the store’s own labels
What the document says. “We use anonymous analytics only, and we do not know who you are.”
What appears to be the case. The store listing declares Identifiers and Usage Data under the heading for data linked to the user.
Why it may matter. The listing and the policy are both public statements about the same behaviour, and a reader who compares them gets two different impressions. One of the two is describing the product less accurately than the other.
The question back to you. Is any analytics identifier associated with a user or device in a way that ties events together over time? The answer decides which of the two statements should move.
Item 3 · Retention
What the document says. “We keep your information for as long as necessary to provide the service.”
What appears to be the case. No period, criterion, or category-specific rule appears anywhere in the document.
Why it may matter. “As long as necessary” is not wrong, but it tells a reader nothing they can act on, and it gives your own team no rule to implement against when someone asks how long data is held.
The question back to you. Is there an actual retention rule in the backend — even a rough one, such as deletion on account closure plus a backup window — that could be stated?
Item 4 · Third parties are not enumerated
What the document says. “We may share information with service providers who help us operate the app.”
What appears to be the case. No provider, and no category of provider, is named anywhere in the document, though the policy elsewhere refers to analytics and crash reporting.
Why it may matter. A reader cannot tell from this sentence whether “service providers” means one crash reporter or a dozen recipients including an advertising network. The sentence covers both.
The question back to you. Which categories of recipient actually receive user data, and would naming the categories — hosting, analytics, crash reporting — cost you anything?
5 · Where the document and the store listing differ
Identifiers — listing: declared as linked to the user · policy: described as anonymous · gap direction: in listing only.
Usage Data — listing: declared as linked to the user · policy: described as anonymous · gap direction: in listing only.
A gap in either direction is worth resolving. A policy that claims more than the app collects is inaccurate in the same way as one that claims less.
6 · What we could not assess
Whether any analytics identifier is in fact linked to a user — settled by your SDK configuration. Whether an in-app deletion route exists — settled by your build.
7 · Suggested order of work
Answer the four questions internally first; two of them usually resolve without anyone else involved. Then decide, for each remaining gap, whether the document or the product is the thing that should change.
Focused Review — Terms of Use
Same matter · SAMPLE — NOT A REAL MATTER
Summary
Two items. The document is materially complete for an app of this type; both items concern commitments the document makes that the product has to keep.
Item 1 · Subscription renewal is not described
What the document says. “Paid features are available by subscription through the App Store.”
What appears to be the case. The listing shows a monthly and an annual subscription. The document does not use the word “renew” and does not describe cancellation.
Why it may matter. Renewal and cancellation are the terms users most often dispute, and the store’s own disclosure is not a substitute for your document describing the bargain.
The question back to you. Do the subscriptions auto-renew, and where is that currently disclosed to the user in your own words?
Item 2 · A notice commitment with no channel behind it
What the document says. “We will notify users at least 30 days before any material change to these Terms.”
What appears to be the case. The document describes no notification surface, and the policy indicates an email address is optional rather than required.
Why it may matter. A notice clause is only as good as the channel behind it. If most users have given no email and there is no in-app notice, this is a commitment that is hard to keep.
The question back to you. Do you want to keep the 30-day commitment and build the channel, or describe the notice you can actually give?
Promises the document makes that the product must keep
30-day notice of Terms changes → is there a channel that reaches users who never gave an email?
“Cancel at any time” → does cancellation happen in-app, or only through the store’s subscription settings?
Scope, limits, and standing (as it appears in every real deliverable)
A real review carries this block. It is reproduced so you can see the boundary you are buying: the review is prepared by a Tennessee-licensed attorney under a written engagement, for one client and one app, under Tennessee law; it is provided solely to that client and may not be relied on by anyone else; it is limited to the two documents named, reflects facts available on the delivery date, and is not a compliance certification, an audit, a guarantee of any app-store or regulatory outcome, or advice on the law of any other jurisdiction.
What this sample is not
It is not a real review, not a real client, and not about any real company. It is not a prediction of how many items your review would contain — a tidy set of documents might produce two, a generic template adapted from another product might produce a dozen. And reading it does not make your documents compliant, correct, or approved.
If this is the document you want
The Focused Review is a written review of your app’s existing, final-form Privacy Policy and Terms of Use — $275 flat, one app, both documents, under Tennessee law. It is not drafting, not revisions, not a compliance certification, and not a call.
Have both final documents? Begin the private Focused Review →
Prefer not to create an account? Email DJB@AppCounselStudio.com, subject “Focused Review — application”, names only — no documents, app details, or confidential information in a first message.
Not sure you need one? That question has its own note, and the 12-point read-through is free.