We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 3.5.8 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 3.5.8, updated 2026-08-06.
What the analysis found
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.
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.
Trial converts to a charge
Scam over pricked app — I signed up for gut free trial and before you know it was being charged $7.99 per WEEK !! When you bother to look at the subscription options there are several misleading options ranging including a much more…
False advertising — Is not fear for the customer to believe they having a 7 days free trial and you guys charge 7.99 right away, I want my money back, before I report and prove your false advertisement
Unhappy customer — I was offered a free trial and was still charged even though I canceled before the trial was over.
Hard to cancel
BEWARE — Will charge without your knowledge and no way to cancel
Very Expensive and impossible to cancel — $32 a month is way too expensive for an AI Cleaner. Trying to cancel, has been impossible.
Cancel subscription — The app was not really useful to me. And trying to cancel the subscription I followed all instructions, however, was unable to cancel the subscription. I sent a message to Support and hopefully they will be able to…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
False advertising — Is not fear for the customer to believe they having a 7 days free trial and you guys charge 7.99 right away, I want my money back, before I report and prove your false advertisement
False Advertisement — This is NOT free!!!
False advertisement — You all said it was free but I clearly see a 24 hour free trial then I have to pay after that please just keep it real
Paywall blocks the basics
why did it change??? — You used to be able to find videos and delete them for free now you have to pay just to delete. Yeah no, i’ll just find the vids myself
Must Pay To Use — App seems to have useful features, but even the simplest of them are behind a paywall. It identifies similar photos, which is great, but it won't let you delete them without paying, which defeats the whole purpose.
False advertisement — You all said it was free but I clearly see a 24 hour free trial then I have to pay after that please just keep it real
Reports of unexpected charges
Unfair Charge — I didn't notice that this app was on my phone. It charged me $60 and refused to refund my money. I never opened the app nor used it.
Rip off — They advertise 39.99 a year and then sneakily start charging you 7.99 a week. Beware.
Scam — It will not delete off my phone and it keeps charging my phone every day
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 8 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.