We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 2.0.21 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 2.0.21, updated 2026-10-01.
What the analysis found
One source only — shown, not confirmed 3
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.
Aggressive ad load
Ads — Even though I paid for the yearly subscription, I’m still having pop up ads.
Overrun with full screen ads every 2 minutes. — Awful!
Way too many advertisements! — Not worth it try another app. P.S. I was offered money to write a positive review.
Trial converts to a charge
Doesn’t have my county — Doesn’t have my county, and I haven’t found where to cancel my free trial before I get charged
Misleading 7 day free trial — This was supposed to be a 7 day free trial before charging the full amount and instead was charged the full amount. No free trial. I want a refund!
Why didn’t I get the free 7 day trial? — I hit the button that said start 7 day free trial and it charged me immediately, how do I get in touch with this company?
Hard to cancel
DO NOT DOWNLOAD — If you’ve seen ads of this app, you’d know that they say “This is police scanner, it is a completely free app” NOT FREE. THEY FORCE YOU TO GET A FREE TRIAL TO EVEN SEE THE MAP, AND ONCE YOU GET THE TRIAL YOU CANNOT…
Cancellation — This app make it very difficult to cancel
No way to cancel!!! — Watch out. You’ll be paying for this one forever.
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 1 more purchase 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.