We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 6.0.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 6.0.0, updated 2026-09-28.
What the analysis found
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.
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.
Pay to progress
Summery — I loved this app so much for the first couple lessons and I have been using it a lot every single day. Until I would have to pay $20 or more to continue which is a deal breaker for me. I loved this app so much but then I lost my…
Subscription — You have to pay to continue to next unit.
Pay to win — It’s great and all, yeah but like why do we have to pay to learn asl and pay to be inclusive, ik yall have to get money some how but it would make it so much better if we can learn for free- just have a pay wall to learn…
Paywall blocks the basics
good app, but stop being greedy. — This app is very good, actually one of the only ones that helps me learn ASL but the app is basically unusable because the courses are hidden behind a paywall. why do we have to pay for knowledge when…
Subscription Scam — Making everything in life a subscription is a scam. This is sign language, not a regular language. Some people are born deaf, some become deaf from things they can’t control and forcing people to pay to learn when it’s…
MUST READ — Ok so I put this as a five star just so it would show up. Now I actually think this is a rly good app but it is behind a paywall. Usually I would not mind paying but they don’t tell you upfront and it is expensive like 100…
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.
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.