What’s the catch? Hard to cancel — reported by 36 users.
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 2026.40.01 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-07 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 2026.40.01, updated 2026-09-28.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 2026.40.03 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 2026.40.03, updated 2026-10-05.
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.
Context 1
Measured and published because a reader would want to know — deliberately not a charge. The measurement alone does not show a harm.
Positive evidence 2
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.
Trial converts to a charge
Charged when offered free trial, deleted immediately — I selected free trial and was immediately charged. Not only that but in my case the edits made were no improvement on Gemini chat, couldn’t change the background of the image though…
Not-so-free Trial — When I select a subscription with a free trial, the app still attempts to charge my card $25. Unbelievable. Your app could be amazing but if you’re scamming people into paying you for “free trials”, then I’m afraid I…
Charged right at signup even though they offer a free trial. pixelcut is light years better. — Exactly what the title says: Charged right at signup even though they offer a free trial. pixelcut is light years better in every way.
Hard to cancel
Cannot cancel your subscription — I would give this zero stars if I could. The app didn’t do exactly what I’d hoped. I signed up for the free trial, and none of the platforms will let me cancel my subscription.
Cancelling on phone — I’m on a phone, and to cancel the subscription you have to go to the website to cancel, but it directs to the app, which directs to the website and so on. I would rate this app a 2/5 if cancelling wasn’t completely…
Won’t let me cancel free trial — They make it very difficult to cancel the free trial
Paywall blocks the basics
Free trial not free — I downloaded this app by mistake. I thought it was something that I was looking for. I instantly cancel this subscription that was free and now I cannot download or update any apps on my phone because he’s trying to…
Used to like this when it was free — A great app but a shame that they changed it from lots of free stuff with adding the logo at the bottom on final picture to now you have to pay a subscription to get the best out of the app.. I have…
Cynical App - Didn’t work as promised — Picked this because it promised basic functionality for free but it didn’t do as promised … instead, on installing the load stalled at the UPGRADE TO PRO option, pushing you for a supposed FREE…
Price keeps rising
This used to be a really great app for inserting simple backgrounds into pictures. Now it inserts them as some sort of PNG that's very faint that you can't see until you save it and it has poor picture quality. They've ruined this app and…
Glitchy since they started charging more — This is a useful app, and good at what it does, but since the price was increased 10x it has been glitchy and unreliable. Very disappointed with this app and can’t believe that it costs as much…
Good but be careful — I have been using photoroom for quite some time when they increased their fee. Ok, that’s fine. What isn’t fine is they renewed me at the new price when I still had months left on my pre paid subscription. Lucky I…
Reports of unexpected charges
Unreasonable charges — ⚠️ PLEASE BE EXTREMELY CAREFUL BEFORE PURCHASING ANYTHING THROUGH THIS APP. I signed up for a yearly subscription ONE TIME, and somehow I was charged six consecutive times, once every week, for a plan I never signed…
Scam App — I clicked on “Free” tried this apps feature, it kept asking to try more additional features for more cost, I declined. I CANCELLED the app within minutes after clicking on it and NOW I’ve been charged $16.89 even with in their…
Scammers ! Terrible app — Double charged me ! Feedback on what I experienced: One of the pages where you can add a photo and change the background was glitching, the screen get stuck and starts flickering. When I placed a high resolution…
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.