We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 3.2.9 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 3.2.9, updated 2026-09-17.
What the analysis found
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.
Aggressive ad load
Pop up Ads for Additional Subscriptions — As a subscriber of Epoch Times I have enjoyed and been informed by many of their articles and videos. Lately they have a pop up ad which kicks you out of whatever article you open when you close…
Keep getting logged out — Not sure what fixed this or what happened initially, but I’m not having to log in over and over. I too was affected by dark mode but not on all ET pages so I didn’t know what the issue was but THANK YOU heartily…
To Many Advertisements!! — The number of advertisements has slowly become an impediment to reading the news on Epoch times! Please don’t become another Fox News
Upgrade prompts use guilt-trip wording
Confusing — I subscribe to the Epoch Times and really appreciate their news, but somehow logging in to the app caused a second charge on another card each month, in addition to my PayPal charge for the original digital subscription. I’ve…
Not happy — I paid my dollar for a week trial subscription, and every time I try to read an article it tells me to pay another dollar full access to their articles. Not happy at all.
Keeps asking me to subscribe — I did subscribe. But every time I try to sign in, it asks me to subscribe again. It’s useless. I can’t get anyone to look at this and I can’t read an article, only headlines.
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.
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.