Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-05 from 511 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 3.0.2 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 3.0.2, updated 2026-10-02.
What the analysis found
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.
Trial converts to a charge
It automatically bought the yearly subscription after my 7 day free trial, without me even willingly inputting my credit card info. It probably pulled it from my Google account, but I wasn't even aware that could happen. It was about 20…
Randomly switched to paid model and took all of my period data away behind a pay wall!! edit: read response and reached out. App still takes me to a "free trial" page that uses my credit card info after 7 days. Not free.
“7 day free trial” still charged — I decided to try it out for the 7 day free trial but it took 18 dollars!!!! What??
Paywall blocks the basics
I was thoroughly enjoyed this app until suddenly without warning without notification, everything was put behind a paywall. it was very misleading. I had this app for a very long time and all of a sudden I logged in later in the month and…
All the features cost money.
This app CANNOT be "by women for women" if it's locked behind a paid subscription, AND recurrent. We already endure financial prejudice with pink tax, and clearly Lively's devs decided to benefit from it!
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.