Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-06 from 922 user reviews, the store listing and its privacy label. We have not scanned the app's package, so nothing on this page was read from inside the app itself.
App Store
This analysis describes version 2.4.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 2.4.0, updated 2026-09-24.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 2.4.0.1973 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 2.4.0.1973, updated 2026-09-21.
What the analysis found
The catch list 1
Charges we publish at a strength we stand behind: measured from an artefact, agreed by independent sources, or reported by enough users to clear that charge's own published bar.
Positive evidence 1
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
One source only — shown, not confirmed 1
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
I've stopped playing it. Obnoxious unskippable Temu ads have ruined it. Even watching the whole advert then clicking on the X on the new screen to close the advert just takes you to Temu. It happens after literally every game, even though…
Game is great, but the Google game ads are ridiculous! You have to click the "Next -->" button a dozen times before it lets you go to the 2nd screen, then you click on that one for a dozen more times, before it lets you move on, and…
Like this game but the ads after every game is now too much. Some last for over two mins, some practically want you to play the game. The cost of getting rid of the ads even with 50% is more than some games charge to get rid completely…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
This is a solitaire game, but it is not the game they use to advertise it. The ad shows a large square and cards are played on the top or bottom or either side. The game looked interesting, and I had not seen it before. This is not that…
At the moment it looks nothing like the ads I saw whilst playing another game. This is far simpler & gives no indication what future levels are like. It also gives you about 10 seconds to make a move before it tells you what move you…
Update: Pretty fun game now that I forgot what the misleading ad promised. ;) The game for what it is is good. MobilityWare makes really good card games. But I want to play what was displayed in the ad. So tired of misleading ads!
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.