We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 12.17.1 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 12.17.1, updated 2026-10-02.
What the analysis found
One source only — shown, not confirmed 2
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.
Hard to cancel
Cancellation Nightmare — Canceling from this company is a nightmare. I enrolled into the elite subscription for six months. I ended up not liking the app so I went on the app and done a cancellation. The app will not allow you to cancel…
Cannot cancel my subscription and it continues to charge me. It’s literally taking my money — 1
Cancel subscription — Once you sign up you can’t cancel
Paywall blocks the basics
Message Issues — I’ve been having issues with my messages on the app for almost 2 weeks. I’ll get a notification saying I have a message but when I click on it and open the app the message doesn’t show up. I’ve been emailing customer and…
Advance options — My biggest gripe is the major thing behind dating is whether or not someone has kids or not. And you put it behind a paywall. Talking about advance options compared to ethnicity or family origins is crazy
If I could give zero stars I would — How do you make a BLK dating app, then update it to put ethnicities on there. It’s a BLACK dating app! Everytime yall update the app it gets worse. Filters still don’t work and never did, distance…
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.