DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
LEGO® DUPLO® World
StoryToys Limited · Education

We analyzed this app across 6 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.

Nothing unfair corroborated · unauditedConfidence: High6 signal sources514 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-06
 Which version this describes

App Store

This analysis describes version 35.0.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 35.0.0, updated 2026-08-06.

Google Play

This analysis describes version 35.0.1 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 35.0.1, updated 2026-08-12.

What the analysis found

Each finding shows what agreed and how strongly. Automated analysis

Positive evidence 2

Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.

No advertising SDKs
Measuredfrom SDKs in the app packageartefact 92f311c6f907…
No advertising or mediation SDK of any kind was found in the package.
What we saw: No advertising or mediation SDK among the 5 SDKs detected in the package
Developer says data deletion can be requested
Measuredfrom the store listingview evidence
The developer's data-safety disclosure on the store states that users can request deletion of their data, or the app's own text offers a way to delete the account. This restates what the developer declares; it is not a test of whether deletion works. Apple publishes no equivalent disclosure, so on an Apple-only listing only the app's own text can support it.
What we saw: The developer's store data-safety disclosure states that data deletion can be requested; we have not seen a deletion control in the app's own text

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.

Reported by users: Paywall blocks the basics
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
The core of the app — not extras — sits behind payment, or previously-free function moved behind a paywall.
What we saw: Paywall blocks the basics: raised by 8 distinct reviewers (2.0% of 403 reviews scanned)
From the store listing: Usable without an account
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is the store privacy disclosure.view evidence
The app's own screens offer a way past sign-up — guest access, skipping, or browsing before registering — rather than gating the product behind an account. The store's privacy disclosure is checked alongside it: that disclosure is self-reported, so it corroborates this credit rather than establishing it.
What we saw: The store privacy disclosure (3 entries) links no contact details or identifiers to the user — consistent with an app that does not require an account. Self-reported by the developer.

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.

Paywall blocks the basics

So this is supposed to be included in Google play pass, but when my son opens it everything is locked except for the free level. My son has autism, And the entire reason I have the Google play pass is so he can Play these games as well as…

1★ · Google Play · 2023-10-25

I have purchased many of the scenes or levels in the past on duplo world and I have redownloaded using the same play account and everything is locked this is not just disappointing it is not acceptable I paid alot of money for all these…

1★ · Google Play · 2023-02-21

Marketing "pride month" to kids, on an app that it very much for young children. Not cool Lego. Uninstalled, customer lost. Apart from the virtue signalling propaganda, nearly everything is behind a paywall. Positives would be the…

1★ · Google Play · 2024-06-12

What this app sells

Every purchase the store discloses. Store listing
 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.

Subscriptions4
UNLOCK EVERYTHING - MONTHLYMonthly$6.99
MONTHLY SUBSCRIPTIONMonthly$6.99
DUPLO YEARLY SUBSCRIPTIONYearly$39.99
YEARLY SUBSCRIPTIONYearly$29.99
Show 6 more purchases we couldn’t categorise

These are really on sale; we just can’t tell from the name whether they recur.

CONSTRUCTION SITE - fun games!Term not stated$4.99
SPACE EXPLORERS - Zero G play!Term not stated$4.99
FOOD FUN - fun games!Term not stated$4.99
AIRPLANE ADVENTURES - fly!Term not stated$4.99
Winter HolidayTerm not stated$4.99
UNDER THE SEATerm not stated$4.99
This list is cut off. Apple shows at most 10 in-app purchases, and this app is at the limit — so it very likely sells more than we can see.
Google Play doesn’t publish per-purchase prices, so this list covers the other store only.

How the automated analysis works

Automated, corroborated, and never human-reviewed without a person.

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.

 Not yet human-reviewed

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.

 How this page was produced
Analyzed 2026-10-06 Version analyzed: 35.0.0 (App Store), 35.0.1 (Google Play)6 independent signals514 reviews scannedConfidence: HighNot human-reviewedVocabulary v1.13Methodology v1.3
Signals run: 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.