What’s the catch? Hard to cancel — reported by 27 users.
Analyzed automatically from 3 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.
This analysis describes version 4.805 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 4.805, updated 2026-10-02.
What the analysis found
The catch list 2
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.
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.
Hard to cancel
Thieves — Scammers!!! Thieves!!! I received a prompt that my booking couldnt be completed. So I closed it and went to another agents site and booked the same exact flight. Only to find out they HAD booked and charged me. Why would I book…
DO NOT FALL FOR THE TRAP — NEVER EVER GET THEIR MEMBERSHIP!! Here’s why this is one of the worst products I’ve ever use: 1. The price may seem cheaper upfront, but they will charge $140+ membership and there’s No Way to Cancel it. The…
BLOCKED FROM CANCELLING — I am unable to cancel my yearly subscription renewal on the app or online, both lead me to an “error” message. The “VIP customer support” requires me to only call an agent (there is no messaging option besides…
Reports of unexpected charges
Scammer — I've been charged twice for a year with their subscriptions. I cancelled a year ago, and today I woke up to being renew for for another year. When I called, they tried all the way to keep me using their app, wouldn't return my…
Don’t share your bank account — They are a thief actually somehow out of nowhere they charge me and without any permission they took money from my bank account. Don’t share your bank account with this app!
Premium account blackmail — I’ve been an eDreams Prime member for a year and would strongly discourage anyone from signing up. Last year, a booking error on their end split my return flight into two separate one-way tickets instead of one…
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.