Hi,
Looking at your screenshot, I think there are a few UI patterns that might be triggering the Guideline 5.6 rejection. Here are my thoughts on what might be causing the issue:
1 . Misleading Purchase Flow (Default Selection & "Continue" Button)
The timeline at the top emphasizes a “3-day free trial,” and the Yearly plan clearly shows a trial badge. However, the Monthly plan is selected by default and doesn't appear to include a trial. Because the screen heavily promotes a free trial, having a prominent "Continue" button while a non-trial plan is selected can give the false impression that tapping it starts a trial. I think this looks like a “bait-and-switch” pattern where users expect a trial but are charged immediately. Instead of selecting a plan by default, I think it would be better to have no plan selected initially, requiring the user to explicitly make a choice.
2 . Lack of Clear Feature Explanation
“Reduce Uncertainty When Dining Out” is a nice headline, but I think the paywall needs to explicitly list what specific features are unlocked by the subscription. Without this context, reviewers might feel the screen is pushing users toward a purchase without clearly explaining what they are paying for.
3 . Missing Standard Subscription Disclosures
I believe it is necessary to include standard auto-renewal fine print at the bottom of the screen, such as stating that subscriptions automatically renew unless canceled at least 24 hours before the end of the current period. Currently, this standard disclaimer text seems to be missing.
For reference, I’m attaching a screenshot of my own app’s paywall. I designed it so that no plan is selected by default (the "Subscribe" button remains disabled until a choice is explicitly made), the premium features are clearly listed, and the standard disclosures are included at the bottom.
Hope seeing a concrete example helps, and good luck with the resubmission!
