Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 515 user reviews. We have not scanned the app's package, so nothing on this page was read from inside the app itself.
This analysis describes version 1.0.5 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.0.5, updated 2026-09-21.
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.
Positive evidence 1
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
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
I'm about ready to uninstall it to many commercials when it comes to the cash app commercial it doesn't want to go off when I hit the arrow and the x button I even reported it three times to be removed never does.
base on my experience this app has many adds every episode has adds even the episode is not a minute long the app got you another adds to watch. it's makes the whole experience sad because you have to watch adds and episode in just a…
I want my money back. I subscribe so I won't have to watch an ads every 30 seconds but I still get ads even after subscribing. Don't waist your time with this app. Zero stars If I could.
What this app sells
How the automated analysis works
This assessment is produced automatically. One independent signal is read — user reviews — and each candidate finding is filed under the source that supports 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 It was withdrawn because it discriminated too weakly to be the instrument — 44.7% of every pair of apps tied — and because a single number is a verdict where a count is an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.