Some warnings 1 confirmed warning, and users report 1 more thing. Checked: 400 reviews, the Android app’s code, the store listing and the privacy label.
From our automated analysis, 30 Oct 2026. Every label links to its evidence in the full report below.
This analysis describes version 4.0.26 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-30 .
The store currently lists version 4.0.26, updated 2026-07-23.
Store screenshots supplied by the developer.
My Talking Slimy is a fun and interactive virtual pet game that lets you take care of your very own adorable slimy friend! Feed him, play with him, keep him clean, and make sure he’s always in a great mood. Watch how he reacts to your actions - he’s full of emotions and surprises!
Your Slimy loves to play! Jump into a huge collection of mini-games - from quick reflex challenges to relaxing casual fun.
Try out:
• Slimy Ninja Cut - sharpen your reflexes and focus.
• Plank - test your sense of balance and timing.
• Music Dance - follow the rhythm and show your coordination.
• Bubble Slime, Stairs, Snake, and many more!
With over 20 mini-games, there’s always something new to discover and enjoy.
Earn coins, unlock new levels, and customize your Slimy with stylish outfits, cool accessories, unique eyes, and funny teeth - make him truly one of a kind!…
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
sha256:7ef4ee68e74a517248062f547a1dace0f91ac133636cda0bfd3959f8462e7c72Specific evidence of a useful property, within the stated scope.
The developer's store data-safety disclosure states that data deletion can be requested; we have not seen a deletion control in the app's own text
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.
Open observations that have not cleared the evidence bar.
Surprise charges: raised by 30 distinct reviewers (about 1 in 13 reviews we read)
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
A large number of reviewers report being charged when they did not expect it — including being charged after cancelling during a free trial, or when a trial turned into a paid plan without warning. We cannot see anyone's billing, so this is published as an attributed user report: what reviewers say, and how many of them said it.
The app's own text says: "Watch the entire video to claim your reward"
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
sha256:7ef4ee68e74a517248062f547a1dace0f91ac133636cda0bfd3959f8462e7c72400 reviews read for this analysis. Each observation keeps the sample and store it was based on.
My 5-year-old child accidentally made a $14.99 purchase (Premium Access). Google Play couldn’t refund it and told me to contact the developer. Please kindly consider a refund — it was a child’s mistake. Thank you 🙏
What kind of foolery is going on here? I have a password on this tablet yet my 4 year old somehow was able to get a free trial. I caught it before the trial ended, and canceled, yet I was still charged. Refund my money!
I was charged over $39 USD for three unauthorized in-app purchases. I contacted support with all three Google Play transaction IDs, but they replied twice with the same generic template without investigating my case or addressing my…
A sampled review illustrates one person’s experience. It does not establish a finding on its own.
“Not assessed” means we could not measure it. It is never a zero and never a pass.
Android package 4.0.26, 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 4.0.26 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-30 .
The store currently lists version 4.0.26, updated 2026-07-23.
Each store’s release notes, as the developer wrote them. They are the developer’s words, not ours.
Bug fixes
No release notes were provided for this version.
my-talking-slimyAssessed 2026-10-30 from 400 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.