DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
LensAI・Identifier・Image Search
Conlan Limited · Education

What’s the catch? Hard to cancel — reported by 27 users.

Analyzed automatically from 3 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.

1 on the catch list · analyzedConfidence: Low3 signal sources500 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-04
 Which version this describes

This analysis describes version 2.0.54 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 2.0.54, updated 2026-08-26.

What the analysis found

Each finding shows what agreed and how strongly. Automated analysis

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.

Reported by users: Hard to cancel
Reported by 27 usersReported by users, not measured — nothing we can inspect could show this either wayview evidence
Cancelling the subscription is blocked, hidden, multi-step, or simply does not take effect.
What we saw: Raised by 27 distinct reviewers — 5.4% of the 500 reviews scanned on this store leg (App Store).

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.

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 (4 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.
Reported by users: Trial converts to a charge
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
The free trial demands a payment method up front and/or rolls into a paid subscription with no usable warning.
What we saw: Trial converts to a charge: raised by 15 distinct reviewers (3.0% of 500 reviews scanned)

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

Didn’t work — Hard to cancel

1★ · App Store · 2026-04-17

Can’t unsubscribe — Once you subscribe to the “free” trial there is no ability to unsubscribe. The settings menu does not have an unsubscribe option.

1★ · App Store · 2026-04-05

Very Difficult to Cancel Subscription — It is very difficult to find an option for cancelling this subscription service.

1★ · App Store · 2026-03-30

Trial converts to a charge

FRAUDULENT CHARGES — Tried to use the free trial, WAS INSTANTLY CHARGED FOR $21. FOR NO REASON. SCAM

1★ · App Store · 2026-04-03

App charges for free trial — I am not able to review since it charges me for free trial. I literally just want to back out of the free trial since the app charges instantly. Beware I feel scammed!

1★ · App Store · 2026-03-22

Fake Free Trial — Even though they say Free Trial they charge your account $19.99 immediately !!! Beware !

1★ · App Store · 2026-03-04

How the automated analysis works

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

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.

 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 2026-10-04 Version analyzed: 2.0.543 independent signals500 reviews scannedConfidence: LowNot human-reviewedVocabulary v1.13Methodology v1.3
Signals run: user reviews, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure. Not yet checked: SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text and the app manifest.