What’s the catch? Multiple ad networks bundled — measured, backed by SDKs in the app package.
Analyzed automatically from 6 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.
App Store
This analysis describes version 65.6.7 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 65.6.7, updated 2026-07-07.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 65.6.7 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 65.6.7, updated 2026-07-07.
What the analysis found
The catch list 2
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 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.
Aggressive ad load
WAY TOO MANY ADS I only gave this game 2 stars because it is a great game. BUT, I've spent more time watching ads than playing the actual game! You don't want ads? You pay for something monthly. Cue the typical response from the company…
Game is good, fun to play too, but the pop up ads after every level are just too much.
Don't start playing this game unless you have money to spend. The further you go in, the more impossible it is to play without spending $$$. I mean, really? Open a game to find you only have 1 or 2 moves to make before it makes you use a…
Progress pauses until you wait or pay
Charged more than what it says — I like this game the only two things I don’t agree with is on the hard levels it won’t give you enough time to play unless you have enough coins and lives. Other thing is when I buy lives and coins it…
Frustrating — I like this game and have been playing for a while but it’s very frustrating when you get one or two moves and it’s game over. Lately I’ve even had it where it will give me zero moves and life lost. I refuse to pay for lives…
Scam — App completely broke after I purchased the weekend special, so if I open the app all I can see is my infinite hearts timer counting down while I’m unable to play the game. I’ve attempted to restart the game, restart my phone, and…
Pay to progress
Unsolvable puzzles over and over so they can make lots of money — I read bad reviews about this game that it was a money ploy and I really wanted it to be not true. But it is true … some levels you just can’t beat without paying money…
New update. — I’ve been playing this game for years. All of a sudden there are new updates. 1) allowing us to redo a move is ok but not necessary. 2) But this one, not being able to use the blackout feature after the game has started…
Unsolvable puzzles — The app itself is great. Works as intended and has fun visuals. The puppy set is adorable! Unfortunately, the most important part of the game, the puzzles, can be ridiculous. Like that time I started a puzzle and…
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.
Show 7 more purchases we couldn’t categorise
These are really on sale; we just can’t tell from the name whether they recur.
How the automated analysis works
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.
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.