Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 418 user reviews, the store listing and its privacy label. We have not scanned the app's package, so nothing on this page was read from inside the app itself.
This analysis describes version 3.0.0.6 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 3.0.0.6, updated 2026-10-01.
What the analysis found
Positive evidence 1
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
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.
Reports of unexpected charges
Hello, AI BABY FACE GENERATOR APP DEVELOPER. I accidentally made a purchase and would like to request a full refund. I was charged ₱459 twice last week without my knowledge, and I received payment notifications through my GCash even…
Warning: I was charged for a subscription I did not intentionally purchase or use. The payment was automatically deducted from my account. I tried contacting support through multiple emails but received no response even after 5 days…
I want to ask about this unauthorized subscription made. I didn't know what it was, but it deducted 459 pesos from my GCash twice at the same time 10:54 AM this month. It says there that it is "PAYMENT TO GOOGLE MERCHANT." I hope you can…
Trial converts to a charge
Hello AI BABY FACE GENERATOR DEVELOPER, I'm having the same issue as others. I was recently charged 459₱ even though I don't have an active subscription. I signed up for the 3-day free trial and canceled it right away to avoid charges…
This app is a scam. At first, they offer a free trial, but the next day they automatically deducted money from my account without my knowledge. I would like to request a refund. I have also tried contacting the creator through email, but…
I thought this was a free trial, but I was charged ₱459 immediately through Google Play. I cancelled the subscription right away and barely used the app because image generation was very slow. My refund request was denied. Please make the…
Hard to cancel
can't speak with anyone when it comes to this app I don't want this subscription an there is no way to unsubscribe this app is a joke they get u to sign up monthly an the don't put a way to unsubscribe they say so many days free an the…
can't unsubscribe and stop the payments
it won't let me unsubscribe it won't let me
What this app sells
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.