We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 2.2.5 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 2.2.5, updated 2025-02-19.
What the analysis found
One source only — shown, not confirmed 5
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.
Trial converts to a charge
Money Taking App — do NOT download this app unless you’re willing to pay $8 for a number that other apps will give you for free! it advertises a 7 day free trial but charges your card as soon as you download the app. i had to close my…
False advertising — The app told me it was giving me a free trial and then charged me $6.99. Will not ever be using this app again.
Was scammed — The offer literally said 3 days free trial, i canceled it 24 hours after the subscription and they charged me $12.99, when I asked for a refund it was denied saying I was not eligible for a refund
Hard to cancel
Can’t cancel and still charging — Biggest rip off ever. They keep charging me and I’m not even using the app!
Got it 5 minutes ago, it didn’t work and now I can’t cancel. — I got the app, and asked my boyfriend to text me. It didn’t work. Now I want to cancel but the feature is not available until the free trial is over. UNTIL THEY CHARGE ME FOR…
Fraudulent — Canceled the subscription and you still charged me. Now you provide no way to cancel the subscription in my settings. This will be legally investit
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Not free — Says it’s free for texting and calling, but once I selected a number I was directed to a page to pick a plan. The basic plan starting at $6.99 a month and up from there. false advertising.
False advertising — The app told me it was giving me a free trial and then charged me $6.99. Will not ever be using this app again.
False advertisement — Searched up “app that allows text codes from apps” so that I can put this phone number in and not get my actual number spammed and this app doesn’t receive those texts from apps and websites as If claims it does…
Reports of unexpected charges
Do not use this app — Paid for a subscription and it did not even work. this app is a scam and I would like my money back
Total Garbage and a Scam — This app is an absolute joke. It doesn’t work AT ALL. Texts fail, calls don’t go through, and it steals your money with shady subscription tactics. There’s no real support—just auto-replies and excuses. Then…
Can’t cancel and still charging — Biggest rip off ever. They keep charging me and I’m not even using the app!
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.