DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
Booking.com: Hotels & Travel
Booking.com · Lifestyle

What’s the catch? Nothing we could corroborate against this app.

Analyzed automatically from 6 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.

0 on the catch list · analyzedConfidence: High6 signal sources2,391 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-06
 Which version this describes

App Store

This analysis describes version 70.2 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 70.2, updated 2026-10-01.

Google Play

This analysis describes version 67.4.0.11 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 69.8, updated 2026-10-06.

The app has been updated since this analysis. The findings on this page describe version 67.4.0.11, not the version now listed on the store.

Release notes for the newer versions, in the developer’s own words:

Version 69.8 · 2026-10-06

No release notes were provided for this version.

What the analysis found

Each finding shows what agreed and how strongly. Automated analysis

Context 1

Measured and published because a reader would want to know — deliberately not a charge. The measurement alone does not show a harm.

Asks for more sensitive permissions than similar apps
MeasuredPublished as context — deliberately not a charge · from the app manifestartefact be7bc81cc247…
The package requests substantially more of the device's sensitive permissions than the typical app in its category. This is a measurement, not an accusation: a permission is granted because a feature needs it, and a wide request list is a reason to look rather than a finding on its own.
What we saw: Requests 8 sensitive permissions (ACCESS_COARSE_LOCATION, ACCESS_FINE_LOCATION, CAMERA, READ_CALENDAR, READ_EXTERNAL_STORAGE, READ_MEDIA_IMAGES, READ_PHONE_STATE, RECORD_AUDIO); the median for 30 scanned apps in Travel & Local is 4

Positive evidence 1

Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.

Developer says data deletion can be requested
Measuredfrom the store listingview evidence
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.
What we saw: 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

One source only — shown, not confirmed 5

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.

In the app's own text: Hard to cancel
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is the app's own on-screen text.artefact be7bc81cc247…
Cancelling the subscription is blocked, hidden, multi-step, or simply does not take effect.
What we saw: Cancellation copy routes the user away from a direct control: "Before you cancel"
In the app's own text: Upgrade prompts use guilt-trip wording
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is the app's own on-screen text.artefact be7bc81cc247…
Declining an upgrade is written as a loss ('No thanks, I don't want to improve'), or users report being repeatedly pushed to subscribe during normal use.
What we saw: Declining is written as a loss: "No, I don't want to cancel"
Reported by users: Reports of unexpected charges
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
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.
What we saw: Surprise charges: raised by 24 distinct reviewers (4.8% of 500 reviews scanned)
In the app's own text: Countdown-timer purchase pressure
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is the app's own on-screen text.artefact be7bc81cc247…
The app's own purchase copy attaches a deadline to buying — a countdown, 'offer ends in', 'limited time' — or ships a countdown view on a purchase-screen layout.
What we saw: Deadline pressure in the app's own copy: "This is a limited offer."
From the store listing: Usable without an account
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is the store privacy disclosure.view evidence
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.
What we saw: The store privacy disclosure (2 entries) links no contact details or identifiers to the user — consistent with an app that does not require an account. Self-reported by the developer.

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.

Reports of unexpected charges

I have been scammed because I booked a room for 4 nights and they took my money but didn't give me my refund after I tried many times to reach out to them a tell them that the property owner is unreachable, their customer service is a…

1★ · Google Play · 2026-10-04

Booked a car via Booking, couldn’t get it, Booking refused to refund us — Terrible experience for the first day of our vacation in Italy… We booked a car via Booking, we couldn’t get the car at Airport because they don’t accept the…

1★ · App Store · 2026-10-01

Refusing to refund scam listing — Booking.com refund policy is joke, scammed by a listing they offered through their website and refusing to refund as the listing never existed. Payed double the cost for a different property which they…

1★ · App Store · 2026-10-01

How the automated analysis works

Automated, corroborated, and never human-reviewed without a person.

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 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.

 Not yet human-reviewed

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.

 How this page was produced
Analyzed 2026-10-06 Version analyzed: 70.2 (App Store), 67.4.0.11 (Google Play)6 independent signals2,391 reviews scannedConfidence: HighNot human-reviewedVocabulary v1.13Methodology v1.3
Signals run: 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.