What’s the catch? Hard to cancel — 2 independent sources agree, backed by user reviews and the app's own on-screen text.
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 8.5.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 8.5.0, updated 2026-09-16.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 5.58.0 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 5.60.0, 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 4
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
This is the biggest pice of shield I have ever seen. they just scams me. I just brought there subscription to watch IPL but they say if want to watch the ipl I have pay them extra. I I am also unable to cancel there subscription while I…
you know it's a garbage app when they hide how to cancel subscription
unable to watch baseball games, Everytime I click on any baseball game I takes me to a basketball game, been like this for a while, nothing gets fixed, and to charge 50 bucks a month and to only be able to cancel through the webpage…
Aggressive ad load
Ads and more ads. Most are 2 minutes and 30 second breaks occurring every 15 minutes during a movie where no advertising takes place. The actual advertisements are completely normal and do not seem to occur more frequently than any other…
App sucks. No play in background, can't get service, tons of commercials for $60plus a month?? Haha 😄
Too many ads. I didn't get an email a day before my free trial was about to end and if I had not recalled then I would've been out 80+ bucks for this shi service. do not rec unless you're on top of your days and cancel before getting…
Trial converts to a charge
When you sign up for trial, they dont tell you that they charge you a day before trail ends. couldn't even watch football game cause channel was blocked.
It makes it seem like you can watch every NFL game, but you only get the local ones, and now I’ve been charged even though I canceled before the free trial ended.
Signed up for the free trial and before I could cancel before the 7 days they charged me in Just 4 days. Wrong!!!!
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
I am disappointed that after i pay for this I still have to watch ads (commercials). But the worst part is that half the ads are not even in English!
false advertising? subscription CLAIMS that all world cup games are available however germany v ecuador and usa v turkey are not?
Garbage, false advertising. Claim to be the best sports streaming service, takes your money, gives you a third of the games and refuse to give money back. Big hustle.
Price keeps rising
This was the best streaming app for years. We got it to watch the Astros. Then they got rid of all the warner discovery channels so that means no food network, discovery, etc. Now this year they got rid of all the NBC universal channels…
great but raised prices so I'm leaving
Used to love Fubo — I thought it was the best choice for streaming. Best value for your buck. But they have continually raised the price and this time they raised it just because of NBC, they raised the price $15 so we could see a local…
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.