Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 946 user reviews, the store listing and its privacy label. We have not scanned the app's package, so nothing on this page was read from inside the app itself.
App Store
This analysis describes version 7.48 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 7.48, updated 2026-09-30.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 7.48.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 7.48.0, updated 2026-09-30.
What the analysis found
Positive evidence 1
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
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
The reporting is really good but the app is extremely buggy, laggy and full of ads.
So many ads and a subscription? Reuters used to be such a good source, shame.
Appalling pop-up ads with paid subscription. The most obnoxious ads I've ever encountered on any app - they behave like malware. These are ONE-TOUCH pop-up ads that activate when you just try to scroll past. Absolutely shameless that such…
Tracking and data collection concerns
Selling data to ICE — I am thoroughly disgusted that the owner of Reuters has signed a deal to give ICE access to their databases. I’m uninstalling the app and will never use the site again.
They sold your data to ICE — I’ve used Reuters as a reliable news source. Unfortunately I had to delete this app due to hearing the news that Thompson Reuters signed a $125M deal to give ICE access to its databases of personal data. I…
Reuters and ICE — Seems that Reuters larger company is selling your private information to ICE. I have decided to not support this platform because of the harm to the greater public.
Paywall blocks the basics
used to be good. Now everything is behind a paywall. Don't bother unless you're willing to pay a subscription. You get to read like 2 articles then it won't let you use it. classic big tech enshitification. Just use Google for your news…
Once a go to news source, now every notification you get is to an article behind a paywall to read. Officially uninstalled the app. All about money, not about the journalism.
increasingly behind a paywall. they increasingly offer less free articles/month and put far more articles behind an exclusive paywall. additionally, REUTERS is deploying increasingly advanced methods to TRACK YOU. If a news site tracks…
What this app sells
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.