Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 518 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 2.7.1 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 2.7.1, updated 2026-09-18.
What the analysis found
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.
Positive evidence 1
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
One source only — shown, not confirmed 1
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.
Aggressive ad load
this app is a scam, started of fun money going up. I it kept changing its withdraw amount. im currently stuck at 291 need to get to 300. it went from £10, £5, £0.30 and now im barley making 2-3p each episode. and the tasks state £5-10 for…
Wickedness at its highest level. Not only that, it's a scam, but will suffer you, drain your data with ads. They make it a hell for you to reach the target to withdraw and will not even allow you to withdraw after reaching the withdrawal…
What kind of Joke is this? First the ads for this app are Fraudulent,2nd you have to watch countless vids to get to supposedly $500 ,but I had already gotten up to $489 and it starts pay out in $0.01 , now when I sign in I'm back down to…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
This app uses deceptive "bait-and-switch" tactics to defraud users of their time and generate ad revenue. The app advertises a "guaranteed withdrawal" at a $300 threshold. However, once you spend days watching ads to reach this amount…
fake adds
waist of time if you like the shows has some ok ones , but even on your daily login gift even if it says $5 you only get. 2cents ....you know they used to be a law against false advertising ...
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.