Alright, i worded that badly. They admit to there being no wrongdoing on Kapeli's side by giving the option to reopen his account at all.

If they thought there were any wrongdoing they wouldn't even be talking to him, much less make him that offer.

Why are you equating Apple's willingness reinstate his account with an admission that there was no wrongdoing?

The wrongdoing here is that he opened multiple accounts that could legally be linked to him and allowed one of them to be used to defraud the App Store. Apple could see that as wrongdoing while being sympathetic to his story that he forgot about it / lost control of it and so allow him to reinstate his account.

> he opened multiple accounts

You got your facts wrong. He did not do that.

At the very least he allowed his credit card to be used in the enrolling of multiple accounts. We don't actually know whether he went through the sign up procedure for both accounts — he very well may have, you don't know either.

But in either case, Apple may have viewed this as the wrongdoing.

So the same question applies to you: why are you equating Apple's willingness to reinstate his account with an admission that there was no wrongdoing?

> Apple may have viewed this as the wrongdoing.

It is expressly permitted by their guide lines to use another person's credit card to start one's own account as long as one provides govt id: https://developer.apple.com/support/purchase-activation/ Please get your facts straight before trying to get into an argument.

As to your question: If there was any wrongdoing, which Apple at first staunchly insisted there was, Apple would not even bother to talk to him, much less offer any redress.

I'm not arguing that the guidelines don't permit one to use another person's credit card.

I'm suggesting that if the account goes on to commit fraud then Apple may view that as wrongdoing. That is, the developer loaning out their credit card should be more responsible. Can you not see that this is a possibility?

And if this is a possibility then you might also see how Apple could allow the developer to reinstate their account because they are sympathetic to the reasons behind it happening. It doesn't have to mean that no wrongdoing took place.

It simply means: "We understand there was no intent to commit fraud, but it still happened, so we'll let you have your account back as long as you clear up how and why this happened on your blog."

Edit: Why would Apple not talk to him if there was any wrongdoing? I have been in a position where Apple has talked to me after assuming I was involved in wrongdoing. I was able to clear it up because they talked to me about it.

> That is, the developer loaning out their credit card should be more responsible. Can you not see that this is a possibility?

No, that is absolutely dificulous to me, and if it were the case, then the guidelines must state that, which they don't.

> Why would Apple not talk to him

Because they already told him they would not when they thought there was nothing in question.

> the guidelines must state that, which they don't.

Why must they state that? It's a fairly obscure edge case that they probably didn't predict. There aren't going to be guidelines for every conceivable possibility of how a cluster of Apple developer accounts can be (mis)used.

> Because they already told him they would not when they thought there was nothing in question.

Your claim is that if Apple even talks to the developer, then there must be no wrongdoing. I disagree with that in this case and from personal experience. Apple's developer relations people are generally able to understand and sympathise with extraordinary circumstances. Such as they did in this case.