What’s the catch? Reports of unexpected charges — reported by 32 users.
Analyzed automatically from 3 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.
This analysis describes version 1.633.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.633.0, updated 2026-09-29.
What the analysis found
The catch list 1
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.
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.
Reports of unexpected charges
Subscription — Tried to cancel subscription multiple times, said I was unsubscribed and then still was charged
Over charged/wont refund — This app was supposed to notify me before the trial ended before charging me. Not only did it not notify me, it also charged me more that what it said the cost was. I tried to request a refund , it said I was…
Sneaky yearly subscription charged after trial — Don’t expect an actual reminder that your trial will end, just another non-descriptive email that they’ll sneak into their battery of spam in your inbox. Request a refund? Good luck getting…
Trial converts to a charge
Sucks — This app sucks. They completely rely on you forgetting about free trial then start charging you as much as they can before you cancel. Never used this app once and they charged me $100.
Rip off — Canceled the app during the free trial and still continue to bill me after the seven days $30. What a rip off.
It steals your money — I downloaded the app and found out it cost money, to which I declined because I have better things to spend my money on. But they gave me the option of a free trial so I accepted it, but I then realized how I didn’t…
Hard to cancel
Subscription — Tried to cancel subscription multiple times, said I was unsubscribed and then still was charged
Scam!! — They will take your money with absolutely no way to cancel!!
Difficult to cancel — They make you sign up in such way that you can’t cancel from your subscriptions. They do not respond to requests to address a cancellation even if it’s on the same day you were charged and weren’t expecting to be…
Paywall blocks the basics
Unusable! — THE APP IS NOW LOCKED BEHIND A SUBSCRIPTION SCREEN! I decided to try this app to see if I could get a better handle on my sleep after working nights in the ER. I had the paid plan for a bit while it was on sale and it was…
I really liked it. — I found it was right on the nose. I kinda miss the free trial but I just cannot afford it. I start new coverage on the first and I’m going to see if my insurance helps with it, doubt the plan will but you never know…
Costs money — Spent 20 minutes in the app setting everything up just to find out it cost money to get any information. What a waste of time!! It also found my sleep information through Apple health which I have never even set up so I…
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.