DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
Mobile Scanner App - Scan PDF
Glority Global Group Ltd. · Productivity

Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 957 user reviews, the app's package, the store listing and its privacy label.

Analyzed automaticallyConfidence: High6 signal sources957 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-04
 Which version this describes

App Store

This analysis describes version 2.26.1 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 2.26.1, updated 2026-09-20.

Google Play

We cannot tell which version of the app this analysis describes. It was run 2026-10-04 , and the app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 2.17.0, updated 2026-09-16.

What the analysis found

Each finding shows what agreed and how strongly. Automated analysis

Context 1

Measured and published because a reader would want to know — deliberately not a charge. The measurement alone does not show a harm.

Cheapest and priciest options are far apart
MeasuredPublished as context — deliberately not a charge · from the store listingview evidence
The disclosed in-app purchases span an unusually wide price range. Published as context: the cheapest and priciest items may be different kinds of product entirely, so the spread alone deducts nothing.
What we saw: In-app purchases run from USD 3.99 to USD 99.99 — a 25x spread across 10 items

Positive evidence 1

Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.

Developer says data deletion can be requested
Measuredfrom the store listingview evidence
The developer's data-safety disclosure on the store states that users can request deletion of their data, or the app's own text offers a way to delete the account. This restates what the developer declares; it is not a test of whether deletion works. Apple publishes no equivalent disclosure, so on an Apple-only listing only the app's own text can support it.
What we saw: The developer's store data-safety disclosure states that data deletion can be requested; we have not seen a deletion control in the app's own text

One source only — shown, not confirmed 5

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.

In the app's own text: Aggressive ad load
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is the app's own on-screen text.artefact 8b05d9674ceb…
Advertising volume or placement that interrupts normal use: ads between every action, unskippable or forced full-screen ads.
What we saw: Progress is gated behind watching an ad: "Watch an ad to continue"
Reported by users: Trial converts to a charge
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
The free trial demands a payment method up front and/or rolls into a paid subscription with no usable warning.
What we saw: Trial converts to a charge: raised by 5 distinct reviewers (1.1% of 444 reviews scanned)
In the app's own text: A plan is pre-picked as 'recommended'
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is the app's own on-screen text.artefact 8b05d9674ceb…
The purchase screen arrives with one plan already framed as the recommended or most popular choice, so the default is the app's preference rather than the user's. We do not compare the plans' prices, and only the app's own text evidences this, so it is shown, but never counted as a charge.
What we saw: Purchase screen steers the choice: "MOST POPULAR"
Reported by users: Reports of unexpected charges
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
A large number of reviewers report being charged when they did not expect it — including being charged after cancelling during a free trial, or when a trial turned into a paid plan without warning. We cannot see anyone's billing, so this is published as an attributed user report: what reviewers say, and how many of them said it.
What we saw: Surprise charges: raised by 22 distinct reviewers (5.0% of 444 reviews scanned)
In the app's own text: Countdown-timer purchase pressure
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is the app's own on-screen text.artefact 8b05d9674ceb…
The app's own purchase copy attaches a deadline to buying — a countdown, 'offer ends in', 'limited time' — or ships a countdown view on a purchase-screen layout.
What we saw: Deadline pressure in the app's own copy: "Limited Offer"

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

I tried the free trial but immediatly they charged me.

1★ · Google Play · 2026-08-07

This app will unauthorized charge you even without consent. And will insist that the charge us under policy. They will also say that the first week is a free trial and cancel so you will not be charge. even if cancelled and got charge…

1★ · Google Play · 2026-07-05

no stars. the free trial does not work,they still try to bill you. I've had my credit card attempted to charge several times after cancelling. They have reached out after this review -waiting in a response that they'll stop trying to…

1★ · Google Play · 2026-09-20

Reports of unexpected charges

If I could give zero I would. The app is quite basic and difficult to cancel the subscription which led to them charging me after 3 days. They did not refund my $40+ dollars which the app is clearly not even worth.

1★ · Google Play · 2025-12-12

Immediately deleted without even opening it after reading the bad reviews re: file access, and the unlawful unauthorised charging.

1★ · Google Play · 2026-06-09

you took my money from.my account automatically yet you had said free 7 days trial..now lm.broke..the money was taken without my consent

1★ · Google Play · 2026-03-23

What this app sells

Every purchase the store discloses. Store listing
 What this app sells
Google Play doesn’t publish per-purchase prices, so this list covers the other store only.

How the automated analysis works

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

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.

 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 2026-10-04 Version analyzed: 2.26.1 (App Store), unknown (Google Play)6 independent signals957 reviews scannedConfidence: HighNot human-reviewedVocabulary v1.13Methodology v1.3
Signals run: 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.