We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 4.6.1 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 4.6.1, updated 2025-05-29.
What the analysis found
One source only — shown, not confirmed 3
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.
Hard to cancel
no way to cancel — I'm disgusted with this app. Takes forever to send anything and can't tell what the account has purchased.
Cannot Cancel — My fax never went through and when you click the link to cancel, your only options are to renew for more expensive plans.
Can’t cancel — Where do I go to cancel??? Can’t find anything in the app itself. I don’t have a computer. I thought I would love this but hate it only keeps records for 90 days. Getting my TX real Estate license & know how important faxes…
Reports of unexpected charges
Stay far away from this app — I got the free trial claim for 7 days. I canceled after 2 days because didn’t work and they still charged my Apple account $8.99 for the week! I filed a claim with Apple and they refused to give money back…
Charged — Canceled my subscription and they still charged me.
Error message, No fix — I paid $8.99 to send a fax. I received an error message and it took them days to get back to me. Already sent the fax via another app. Apple won’t refund me and this company says it’s Apple’s job. Don’t waste your…
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.