We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 1.48.8 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.48.8, updated 2026-05-07.
What the analysis found
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.
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.
Paywall blocks the basics
Paywall — Shouldn’t have to pay for an app like this cannot do anything rleated to the main purpose of this app without paying
Slop — just OF promotions, and you have to pay to do like anything on it
BASSICALY A DATING APP — You have to pay for everything and the free trial is only 3 days. People use this as a Dating app I’m talking like they should go onto OF bcuz they CLEARLY want too.
Trial converts to a charge
Scammers, do not interact with this app. WILL TAKE YOUR MONEY — They claim you can receive a 3 day free trial, and when you purchase the trial you are charged full price from the get go. Complete and absolute scammers. Avoid this app at…
BE AWARE! — When I downloaded the app I was skeptical if it was real, it said I’d would get charged for the 3 day free trial but still got charged 10 dollars, if it’s a free trial you shouldn’t charge people with hidden fee.
Banned and Keeps Charging Me — So for some reason I was never told, I am banned off this platform. Every time i try to log in it with something else I try the free trial and it charges me then immediately bans me. So I’m out $30 after…
Paywall with no way past it
can’t even use app without paying — gotta pay 9.99 to even use the app don’t bother gamer links better
at least let people try the app first — you have to pay for the subscription to even use the app. no hidden x, absolutely no way to get past the paywall screen once you connect your first account. i shouldn’t have to use the 3 day free…
you can’t get in the app without paying for a subscription. — plink is inaccessible unless you pay for a subscription.
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Not what it’s advertised to be unless you pay, probably. — Filled with sex bots if you try and have a free account.
False advertising — Says it’s free but forces you to get the subscription after download
Can’t even get into the app — I just downloaded this app which advertises as completely free, but there’s a paywall before you can enter the app. You can NOT skip it. It is required. It says you get 3 days free and even states “no payment…
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 2 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. 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.
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.