We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 2026.39 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 2026.39, updated 2026-09-28.
What the analysis found
One source only — shown, not confirmed 2
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 that the ads misrepresent the app
Bait and switch — Seamless has made food and food delivery more expensive with their charges to customers and restaurants. This is why you life is so much more expensive than it was 5 years ago
Useless — Huge bait and switch on delivery and pickup times; fake times designed to make you order. No recourse at all when it immediately after ordering adds 30-60 mins. Ridiculous.
Bait and Switch app — App promo codes get “applied” but never work. Then it says you’ve previously used this promo code before, including the ones they send you. Discount interface that’s just grub hubs lesser brother. Just use grub hub…
Reports of unexpected charges
Deceptive charging practices — Ordered food. Showed me the total and misc charges. Never presented the tip amount. Surprise, surprise when my card charge comes through, there’s a tip I never saw, nor authorized. Had to fight with support…
Sneaky fees continue — Sneaky charges, but app does work well.
Crooks. Only a matter of time now. — When i contact customer service everyone is a supervisor. Seems thats another lie they implemented to prevent escalation. They give customers a refund cap. After that they don’t refund holding you…
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.