Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-06 from 977 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 10.24.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 10.24.0, updated 2026-09-28.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 8.4.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 8.4.0, updated 2026-10-01.
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 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.
Reports of unexpected charges
credits don't carry over from one month to the next. they basically leave you stuck at 10 credits. I was out of the country and just realized I've been paying for nothing. basically stole my money! paying every month and getting no…
This app used to be good but now they are scamming me out of money. They don't follow their own terms of service and cancelled my subscription without asking me and are refusing to give me the credits I'm owed. I will be disputing the…
Have been using classpass for a few years now and I never really felt scammed until now. I was sick and knew I wouldn't be able to go for classes for awhile, so I paused my membership just THREE days after a new billing cycle started. I…
Trial converts to a charge
$99 charged for a subscription I barely touched, no reminder before the free trial ended, and an unnecessarily difficult cancellation process. Charging customers is easy, but making it easy to leave seems to be another story. Very…
ClassPass have charged me £138 for an app that I never use! I installed various apps including this one to find contact details for my local gym - that was two months ago. Supposedly I clicked to begin a "Free Trial" and I've been charged…
Extremely disappointed with my experience as a new customer. Please be careful with their “free trial” because I was surprised to be charged and placed on one of their most expensive packages. I contacted customer service to ask for a…
Hard to cancel
This app is absolutely predatory. I signed up for the free trial and barely any classes were available in it so I ended up not attending any. I then couldn't cancel the app. The cancellation flow makes you click cancel a total of 5 times…
the app is a scam. tried to cancel my membership last month and this month they still deducted money from my account. $99 is not a small amount. they really need to have a reminder for when payment is due. the cancellation process was…
I don't usually leave negative reviews, but, what's the point of a trial and giving people 59 credits when so many businesses are behind the membership paywall? Also, cancelling the trial has been hidden well. I'm sure that was…
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.