What’s the catch? Nothing we could corroborate against this app.
Analyzed automatically from 3 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.
This analysis describes version 2.39.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 2.39.0, updated 2026-09-21.
What the analysis found
Context 1
Measured and published because a reader would want to know — deliberately not a charge. The measurement alone does not show a harm.
One source only — shown, not confirmed 4
A single kind of evidence. We publish these because withholding them would be the bigger distortion, and we do not treat any of them as a finding we stand behind.
What reviewers said
Verbatim excerpts from public store reviews, shown as corroborating user reports. They are not Appworthy audit evidence, and a quotation is not proof of the finding it sits under.
Aggressive ad load
Good storyline with very poor grammar — It must be a poor translation. Many words are missing or the wrong words are used in in sentences. I feel like I’m proofreading just to get the right gist of what they’re saying. Also 3 long ads to…
Ripoff — Literally every chapter you have to pay for… and it all adds up to be more money than it’s worth. PLUS, the chapters do not flow together. It is not a well thought out book you end up buying per chapter… by the time you give up…
Are the books worth the hassle? — So far the books I’ve tried have been promising, but I’m not sure if I’ll ever finish any of them. Each book I’ve tried started with several chapters with no strings. Then you get a few more if you are…
Hard to cancel
Scam — This app is a scam & you can’t cancel you subscription as advertised. Don’t sign up!
Difficult — Finding it hard to cancel this app. Contacting the developer is not possible
Support stinks — If I could give this a zero I would. Trying to cancel a subscription It’s nearly impossible. I’ve been trying for 3 months and now I’m going to have to cancel my card because of this. Their email is invalid
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
The stories are good but the price to read them is too high. — The stories are good but the price to read them is too high. I feel like all these stories apps do a bait and switch just like a car salespeople. Even when they say it’s free…
The stories are good — The stories are good, but they tell you if you get a subscription you have full access to their library. That’s a lie and false advertising. I have waited several days thinking I could get extra coins to finish this…
Not free — The app is advertised as free reading of all novels but it is not free.
Reports of unexpected charges
Scam — This app is a scam & you can’t cancel you subscription as advertised. Don’t sign up!
Thieves — They continue to charge account that was canceled. There isn’t even a listing of the application in either my active or inactive subscriptions. I did pay for the subscription for the low introductory offer but when I realized it…
Awful — If it was possible to give zero stars I would. I canceled my plans and they keep billing me.
What this app sells
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.
Show 2 more purchases we couldn’t categorise
These are really on sale; we just can’t tell from the name whether they recur.
How the automated analysis works
This assessment is produced automatically. Three independent signals are read — user reviews, 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 subscription bills weekly; 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.
Several measurements above say “Not assessed” because no artefact we hold can answer them. A human review is what resolves those — and it can remove a favourable band as easily as add one.
Hands-on inspections are not yet open.