I didnāt expect to make sixty-six bucks in a restaurant ā I just wanted to know how Apple lets these āwin cashā apps exist. What I found says a lot about how the App Store lost its grip on trust.
Note: This piece combines my personal experience as a developer with publicly verifiable facts. Some sections include opinion and interpretation; those are presented as commentary, not as claims of fact.
The Ad That Started It
The ad was absurd: someone sitting in a restaurant, realizing they couldnāt pay their check ā then opening a game on their phone, playing for two minutes, and bam! their PayPal balance jumps by sixty-six bucks. Problem solved.
It was so over the top I had to laugh. But the more I thought about it, the more I wondered: how is this even allowed? This wasnāt a back-alley website or some sketchy APK download ā it was advertised as an App Store game. Thatās when curiosity got the better of me.
The Investigation
I didnāt download it ā Iām not that crazy 𤪠ā but I was curious how something like this slips through.
Itās a so-called ācash gameā app available on the App Store, and if you dig in youāll find many of these titles list no in-app purchases (IAPs). That alone is a red flag: if you can āwin moneyā but there are no IAPs ā meaning no legitimate way for players to spend or earn real money through Appleās own payment system ā then whereās the money coming from? The answer, of course, appears to be nowhere. It looks like a predatory cash-game ad ā part of a growing wave of similar promotions across social platforms.
Every āwin-cashā flow follows the same pattern: it starts with bonus cash ā $10, $20, sometimes even $50 ājust for signing up.ā But that money often isnāt withdrawable; you can only spend it playing matches against other players. Eventually, the app starts nudging you toward a deposit so you can āunlockā higher-payout games. And hereās the trick: thereās no Apple-branded purchase screen. No Face ID confirmation, no receipt in your email, nothing that goes through Appleās system at all. The payments often happen through a webview ā basically a little in-app browser ā that routes you to a third-party checkout. Thatās how these companies dodge Appleās in-app purchase disclosure rules.
Itās all technically legal because of the āexternal paymentā loophole Apple had to open after the Epic Games litigation and regulatory changes. What was meant to help honest developers avoid a high commission now lets shady operators hide behind off-platform transactions. Apple doesnāt list those flows as āin-app purchases,ā because technically, they arenāt.
Then thereās the PayPal logo. The ads and checkout pages flash it everywhere, implying some kind of official partnership. That can be misleading to consumers: anyone can use PayPal as a payment processor, but the branding gives a false sense of endorsement. Itās trust-by-association ā or really, trust laundering through familiar logos.
A Slot-Style Example in the Feed
Another ad I saw promoted a slot-machine-style game promising āreal money,ā āno scams,ā and āPayPal cashouts.ā The overlay claimed thousands had āalready won,ā and the App Store badge sat in the corner to make it look official. The small print ā āNo top-up necessary: free to play; skill-based rewardsā ā is often just legal theater designed to skirt gambling rules. The visuals scream Las Vegas, the copy screams legitimacy, and the execution suggests large-scale ad buys.
Public consumer-complaint boards contain dozens of reports describing similar behavior: users who say they never received promised payouts, who had funds withheld, or who experienced unauthorized charges ā and yet titles like these remain live on app stores.
Escalation Mode: From āFree Moneyā to Fake Millionaires
Then came the follow-up creatives ā same product category, upgraded claim.
Now we werenāt just talking about small wins. Now itās ālife-changing income.ā
Itās the same formula:
- Start with a relatable struggle (bills, rent, groceries).
- Introduce a āgame that pays you.ā
- Overlay fake income numbers that grow exponentially.
- End with an App Store link for legitimacy.
The effect is deceptive familiarity. It weaponizes peopleās financial anxiety with false hope ā and the ad platforms (which profit from the buys) have little incentive to block the spenders.
The Real Problem
The old argument was that Appleās commission was too high. And yeah, many developers argued that. But hereās the irony: in the name of āfairnessā and āchoice,ā the gates were opened, and this is what poured in. These ads exploit the App Storeās remaining aura of safety. They say āOpens App Storeā instead of āOpens random websiteā ā and that design cue is enough to lower peopleās guard.
When the Rules Worked Too Well
Iāve actually been on the other side of this ā as a developer. Apple once rejected one of my own app submissions simply because I hadnāt yet adopted a privacy policy. And to be fair, that was the right call. They were serious about protecting users back then.
But it didnāt stop there. Iāve worked on apps where Apple rejected builds for using certain web content ā things that would have been fine anywhere else. Meanwhile, the Android version of the exact same app frequently sailed through Google Play without a hiccup. At the time, that difference felt reassuring. Appleās strict review process used to be the reason people trusted the platform. You could disagree with their commission model, sure ā but at least the apps themselves felt safe.
Thatās what makes this new era so jarring. The same company that once rejected apps for minor compliance issues now hosts flashy āearn-moneyā games that make sweeping payout claims. Itās not just hypocrisy ā it feels like a collapse of standards.
The Takeaway
If Appleās old App Store was a walled garden, the new one feels more like a carnival midway. The rules are looser, the scams are slicker, and the trust Apple spent years building is being eroded by lax ad vetting and creative legal workarounds.
Meanwhile, legitimate developers still get flagged for privacy compliance issues. Itās kind of heartbreaking to see a platform once known for curation now hosting so much digital snake oil.
To be fair, the App Store still does an excellent job at what it was originally built for: keeping malware off your device. Youāre unlikely to download something that hijacks your phone or steals your contacts.
šÆ How Fake Ratings Keep These Scams Alive
If youāve ever wondered how these cash-game titles can sit at high star averages despite complaint threads, hereās how the listings stay glossy.
- The Ratings Reset Trick ā Push an update, clear old reviews, and start fresh.
- Paid Review Farms ā Burst campaigns of fake 5-star installs and reviews.
- āReview Gatingā ā Only happy users are prompted to rate.
- The Bait-and-Switch ā Rebrand or change an app but keep the same listing history.
- Bribed Reviews ā Offer in-game bonuses in exchange for 5-star ratings.
- The Numbers Lie ā A flood of short 5-star taps drowns out fewer long 1-star complaints.
- Why Platforms Donāt Always Intervene ā Scale, automation, and unclear incentives mean technical policy violations are prioritized over deceptive marketing.
These manipulations exploit the gap between policy and practice ā and theyāre extremely profitable even if only a tiny fraction of users ever deposit real money.
š Why So Many People Believe It
At first glance, itās easy to scoff at someone believing they can earn cash instantly in a restaurant. But these campaigns are engineered to be believable. They borrow the platformās trust signals, use comfortable UX, and prey on real financial stress. That combination is powerful.
- The Illusion of Safety: An App Store badge and familiar icons lower the guard.
- Hope as a Hook: These creatives aim at people looking for relief, not just entertainment.
- Familiar Design: Payment logos and app store affordances create false authenticity.
- Diffuse Responsibility: No single company owns the problem ā platforms defer, processors process, advertisers advertise.
- The Math of Manipulation: Even a small percentage of paying users scales quickly into sizable profit.
Thatās the real tragedy ā not gullibility, but misplaced trust.
š Expanded Fact Check & Sources
| Claim / Assertion | Verified Evidence / Sources | Context & Caveats |
|---|---|---|
| Apple says the App Store prevents fraud and review manipulation. | Apple Newsroom (2025) | Apple self-reports $9B prevented; not independently verified. |
| App Store guidelines ban review manipulation. | App Store Review Guidelines | Rule exists; enforcement uneven. |
| Apple claims to remove fraudulent reviews when discovered. | Apple Support (2024) | āAggressively combatsā fake reviews, but timing opaque. |
| Federal ruling bars Apple from collecting commissions on off-App Store payments. | Adapty.io (2025) | Order under appeal. |
| Apple changed U.S. App Store rules to allow external links. | 9to5Mac (2025) / TechCrunch (2025) | Applies only to U.S. storefront. |
| Developers can use direct external purchase links. | Apple Developer Docs (US Entitlement) | Specifies icon and disclosure text. |
| Apple previously tightened rules against scams (2021). | TechCrunch (WWDC 2021) | Shows earlier anti-fraud stance. |
| Review manipulation services exist. | Medium ā The Dark Side of App Store Optimization (2023) | Confirms active gray-market review farming. |
| Apple states all apps are human-reviewed. | Apple Support ā App Review Process (2024) | Confirms Apple retains full approval control. |
Disclaimer: This article includes factual citations and personal interpretation based on professional experience. Interpretive statements are opinion, not verified fact.