We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 4.5.8 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 4.5.8, updated 2026-09-23.
What the analysis found
One source only â 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
Not Good đ€Ź â First day worked great then 2nd day I immediately get a popup ad that would not go away and no where to X it gone⊠ended up being a âPhishing Scamâ ~ Deleting the app donât need those kinds of headaches
Way too many commercials â Also, itâs hard to figure out how to cancel your subscription
Commercials! â Too many commercials. Some stations want play until after listening to 3-4 commercials. Broadcast gets interrupted mid-song with commercials. Why?
Hard to cancel
Canât cancel subscription!! â Signed up for the subscription but i need to cancel it and I canât! Iâm on day one of the free trial but i no longer need it so I need to cancel my subscription but it doesnât appear on my list ofâŠ
Unable to cancel app â This app will not let you cancel subscription
Donât like you canât cancel right awayđ€Ź wonât recommend also couldnât find a radio station!! â Was very disappointing!!
How the automated analysis works
This assessment is produced automatically. Three independent signals are read â user reviews, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure â and each candidate finding is filed under the sources that support it.
No charge stands on one kind of evidence â 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 â 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 âReported by N usersâ, once enough reviewers raise it to clear that chargeâs own published bar. That agreement rule is what replaced the human reviewer, not a modelâs confidence.
There is no overall score, on purpose. A 0â99 number was published here until 2026-09-15. It was withdrawn because it discriminated too weakly to be the instrument â 44.7% of every pair of apps tied â 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 âNot assessedâ because no artefact we hold can answer them. A human review is what resolves those â and it can remove a favourable band as easily as add one.
Hands-on inspections are not yet open.