We analyzed this app across 6 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
App Store
This analysis describes version 26.72.4 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 26.72.4, updated 2026-10-02.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 26.72.1 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 26.72.4, updated 2026-10-01.
What the analysis found
Positive evidence 1
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
One source only — shown, not confirmed 4
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.
Tracking and data collection concerns
At this moment in time I don't see a point in using the app anymore. There's a total of 4 deals, 2 of them are delivery only, and one of them is breakfast only. So, if you're going for lunch or dinner there is only 1 deal. You're…
Tracks your location even after your order is placed :( — I’m not sure why, but they continue to track your location after you are done finding the nearest restaurant. And still tracking after our order is placed. This results in rapid…
Needs precise location — App needs precise location to view deals even if you have a restaurant selected. Privacy nightmare, not worth it.
Hard to cancel
I love how I order something in the menu and get to the window only to find it they don't have the item that is ON THE MENU! And I'm told they can't cancel it ... so I'm stuck getting something else that I didn't want in the first place.
Not accurate — You can order in the app even when a store is closed. There should be a default. We ordered from one show up- it’s closed- have to wait for the refund. Order at the next- nothing they are closed too. Won’t let me cancel the…
Thank you — Just got a refund because I didn’t pick up my food I accidentally put it in to a McDonalds across town and after maybe 2 minutes it said I couldn’t cancel it so I got mad and left sweet lady at the story for realizing I was at…
Price keeps rising
I stopped going to McDonald's after they increased prices for the value menu items. It's just not worth the price since there's never any good deals anymore.
Putting aside the shrinkflation and increased menu prices, this app will only allow you to change your payment method at checkout if you make a donation to the Ronald McDonald House. Scummy af behavior!!!
once they had great deals then decided moneys more important than customer satisfaction. should be ashamed of yourselves for increasing prices especially on people who don't have a stable income.
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.