We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 2.0.7 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 2.0.7, updated 2025-09-28.
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
Unable to exit from adds — I am experiencing an issue with the app. There are too many ads, and some of them cover the entire screen with no visible option to close or exit them. As a result, I am unable to continue using the app…
Ads don’t go away — This last month, I can’t get past the google ads page. It’s not currently usable.
Spam — I have started to get pop up ads on this app saying things like “your phone is severely damaged “ or “your phone has been infected by a malware virus”. I will be deleting it. It’s misleading and fraudulent.
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Bait and switch — Promised it had found the owner of a number but requested $1. After I paid it tried to get more money and a subscription to get the promised information. Total scam!
Now serving fake ads phishing — This used to be a decent app now they are serving up phishing attack ads
Deceptive PeopleFinders trap — This app just funnels you to a PeopleFinders page that claims to have full details ready. Immediately after you pay, it reveals the number is opted out and gives you zero data, but they still keep your money…
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.