Some warnings 1 confirmed warning. Checked: 120 reviews, the Android app’s code, the store listing and the privacy label.
From our automated analysis, 31 Oct 2026. Every label links to its evidence in the full report below.
This analysis describes version 1.0.22 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-31 .
The store currently lists version 1.0.22, updated 2026-10-20.
Store screenshots supplied by the developer.
Welcome to Classic Solitaire: Dream Time, where elegance meets exhilaration in a sophisticated card game experience. Immerse in narratives of distinguished charm and unwind with a serene solitaire escape. Assemble a collection of debonair gents to grace your game's aesthetic. Delight in an ad-free environment with intuitive gameplay that honors the classic solitaire tradition. Engage with our free, original solitaire challenges designed to sharpen your skills.…
From the developer’s store description.
For developers and the curious
The evidence, sources, measurements and versions behind every label above.
Findings that met the published evidence standard.
Bundles 16 distinct ad networks / mediation SDKs: Amazon Publisher Services, AppLovin MAX, BidMachine, Chartboost and 12 more
The package embeds several distinct advertising or mediation SDKs — a stack built for ad volume, not for a single house ad.
Package artefact
Appworthy
sha256:b72aff2bf30f3729e3dee4c7ae8ee65cff7cecbe25c96eefac48d0fd9db94746Open observations that have not cleared the evidence bar.
The app's own text says: "Finish playing to get rewards"
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
Advertising volume or placement that interrupts normal use: ads between every action, unskippable or forced full-screen ads.
Package artefact
sha256:b72aff2bf30f3729e3dee4c7ae8ee65cff7cecbe25c96eefac48d0fd9db94746The app's own text says: "Hide ADs"
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
The developer's data-safety disclosure on the store states that users can request deletion of their data, or the app's own text offers a way to delete the account. This restates what the developer declares; it is not a test of whether deletion works. Apple publishes no equivalent disclosure, so on an Apple-only listing only the app's own text can support it.
Package artefact
sha256:b72aff2bf30f3729e3dee4c7ae8ee65cff7cecbe25c96eefac48d0fd9db94746The app's own text says: "Please press "Continue" if you choose to start using our app."
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
The app's own screens offer a way past sign-up — guest access, skipping, or browsing before registering — rather than gating the product behind an account. The store's privacy disclosure is checked alongside it: that disclosure is self-reported, so it corroborates this credit rather than establishing it.
Package artefact
sha256:b72aff2bf30f3729e3dee4c7ae8ee65cff7cecbe25c96eefac48d0fd9db94746The app's own text says: "Open ad when you're back online."
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
The app's own copy describes working without a connection — offline mode, downloading for offline use, or content saved for later. Shown because readers filter on it; it is a feature, not a fairness property, and never counts for or against an app.
Package artefact
sha256:b72aff2bf30f3729e3dee4c7ae8ee65cff7cecbe25c96eefac48d0fd9db94746No review-based observation is published in this assessment. That does not establish that reviewers had no problems.
“Not assessed” means we could not measure it. It is never a zero and never a pass.
Android package 1.0.22, scanned 30 Oct 2026. These describe that package, not the current store version.
Supporting measurements: not a complete list of possible harms or positives. Measurement vocabulary 1.4 · how these are measured
This analysis describes version 1.0.22 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-31 .
The store currently lists version 1.0.22, updated 2026-10-20.
Each store’s release notes, as the developer wrote them. They are the developer’s words, not ours.
More interesting levels
No release notes were provided for this version.
classic-solitaire-apple-6651830614Assessed 2026-10-31 from 120 user reviews, the app's package, the store listing and its privacy label.
What the stores publish. Store ratings are the stores’ numbers, not Appworthy’s, and are never averaged across stores.
From the store listing. Billing terms are read from each purchase’s name — the stores don’t publish them — so treat them as a strong hint, not a disclosure.
These are really on sale; we just can’t tell from the name whether they recur.
This assessment is produced automatically. Six independent signals are read — user reviews, SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text, the app manifest, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure — and each candidate finding is filed under the sources that support it.
No charge stands on one kind of evidence — with one published exception. A finding is either a measured fact that anyone can reproduce (an ad SDK is in the package; every recurring plan the store lists is named as weekly, the term read from the purchase names, with a list cut off at the store’s 10-item maximum not assessed; the privacy label omits a tracker we can see), or it is an interpretation — and an interpretation needs independent sources to agree before it reaches the catch list. The exception is a harm only users can see: a charge may publish from reviews alone, as “Reported by N users”, once enough reviewers raise it to clear that charge’s own published bar. That agreement rule is what replaced the human reviewer, not a model’s confidence.
There is no overall score, on purpose. A 0–99 number was published here until 2026-09-15. It was withdrawn because it discriminated too weakly to be the instrument — 44.7% of every pair of apps tied — and because a single number is a verdict where a count is an observation. What publishes instead is a row of measurements, each of which says what was counted and, where we could not look, says that instead.
Findings under One source only are real reports we do not stand behind as findings. They are shown because withholding them entirely would hide a genuine complaint, and labelled because publishing them as charges would be an accusation off a single source.
Write to [email protected], or use the form. Name the finding, the app version and the evidence that needs correcting. Factual corrections are free and never depend on buying anything.