What’s the catch? Paywall blocks the basics — reported by 28 users.
Analyzed automatically from 6 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.
App Store
This analysis describes version 26.20 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 26.20, updated 2026-09-28.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 26.20.0 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 26.20.0, updated 2026-09-25.
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.
Paywall blocks the basics
So you're now hiding most things behind paywall. Does CNN not know there are other news websites that are free. You have done the pay thing before, I paid many years ago a one time fee, that failed, they dropped the fee and added more ads…
Stil unusable to even see the news. Everything is subscriber only with paywall for everything else. Would not recommend.
Have to pay for the phone. Have to pay for the service. Have to pay for TV service with commercials. Now I have to pay for the app to read the news with ads. I guess the news is only for the wealthy!!
Aggressive ad load
Constant error messages and screen freeze - barely watchable. Way too many ads for a paid version. 5 minutes of news and then 15 minutes of ads! What is the point of paying for access and then it is mostly ads?! This to be very deceptive…
Don't even bother wasting your time. Every story is behind the pay wall and even when you pay you are still inundated with ads.
Good app for breaking news and live updates worldwide. Easy to use, but sometimes shows too many ads.
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Horrible. Only word for it. Would give it 0 if I could. Uninstalled! Ad machine. Deceptive ads presented as 'news' leading to blatently false sites. Openly biased and opinionated. Obscene ads disguised as 'news'. 1-2 star reviews…
Tried to read a story and was told Id reached my free article limit. The limit t must be ZERO since I haven't tried to read a story in the app in many months. Its been bad with ads galore and links to products buy, but now they want me to…
Constant error messages and screen freeze - barely watchable. Way too many ads for a paid version. 5 minutes of news and then 15 minutes of ads! What is the point of paying for access and then it is mostly ads?! This to be very deceptive…
What this app sells
How the automated analysis works
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.
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.