DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
Miraculous Ladybug & Cat Noir
Crazy Labs · Games

What’s the catch? Aggressive ad load — reported by 43 users.

Analyzed automatically from 3 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.

1 on the catch list · analyzedConfidence: Low3 signal sources514 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-05
 Which version this describes

This analysis describes version 5.9.60 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 5.9.60, updated 2026-07-20.

What the analysis found

Each finding shows what agreed and how strongly. Automated analysis

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.

Reported by users: Aggressive ad load
Reported by 43 usersReported by users, not measured — nothing we can inspect could show this either wayview evidence
Advertising volume or placement that interrupts normal use: ads between every action, unskippable or forced full-screen ads.
What we saw: Raised by 43 distinct reviewers — 8.4% of the 514 reviews scanned on this store leg (App Store).

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.

Reported by users: Paywall blocks the basics
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
The core of the app — not extras — sits behind payment, or previously-free function moved behind a paywall.
What we saw: Paywall blocks the basics: raised by 6 distinct reviewers (1.2% of 514 reviews scanned)

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

Its good — AMAZING game the only problem is thers WAYYY to many ads you do have to pay to remove them i just wish they werent do often

3★ · App Store · 2026-07-26

The ads — Way to much ads

1★ · App Store · 2026-07-15

READ THISSS!!!!!!!!! — I was so excited for this app! I really do enjoy watching the show miraculous ladybug. But I wouldn’t get it if I were you! They make you pay for most of the characters! You can only get like 7 char trees with your…

2★ · App Store · 2026-06-24

Paywall blocks the basics

Some of them are locked behind a pay wall — Shame on the game that I played for 5 years on two different devices, they locked basically almost all of the skins behind a pay wall, shame on you

1★ · App Store · 2026-06-24

Obsessed! 😍 — I’ve been Playing This Since 2020! It’s awesome and fun! You don’t have to pay for anything or characters! ✨ Which is amazing! Because I Have played this other miraculous game and I have to pay for literally Everything! 😕…

5★ · App Store · 2024-04-14

I liked it more before :/ — When I started playing a few years ago I had so many characters! But now you need to pay money for the characters it’s horrible, the old version made all the characters obtainable easy but now money! I just…

3★ · App Store · 2023-10-31

What this app sells

Every purchase the store discloses. Store listing
 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.

Subscriptions4
Weekly SubscriptionWeekly$7.99
Weekly VIP MembershipWeekly$7.99
Weekly Subscription PurpleWeekly$7.99
Weekly Subscription DarkWeekly$7.99
Ad removal1
No Ads PackTerm not stated$1.99
One-off packs2
Pack of ButterfliesPack$0.99
Starter PackPack$4.99
Show 3 more purchases we couldn’t categorise

These are really on sale; we just can’t tell from the name whether they recur.

Net of ButterfliesTerm not stated$4.99
Jar of ButterfliesTerm not stated$1.99
Cage of ButterfliesTerm not stated$9.99
This list is cut off. Apple shows at most 10 in-app purchases, and this app is at the limit — so it very likely sells more than we can see.

How the automated analysis works

Automated, corroborated, and never human-reviewed without a person.

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.

 Not yet human-reviewed

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.

 How this page was produced
Analyzed 2026-10-05 Version analyzed: 5.9.603 independent signals514 reviews scannedConfidence: LowNot human-reviewedVocabulary v1.13Methodology v1.3
Signals run: user reviews, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure. Not yet checked: SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text and the app manifest.