We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 9.42.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 9.42.0, updated 2026-09-24.
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.
Aggressive ad load
Buggy and full of ads — Videos will skip around, usually going backwards. No speed control. And more ads than content.
Consumer Abuse — I am disheartened to see so many positive reviews. (Bots?) People need to grow spines. No one should have to be subjected to this many ads. And not just any ads. Garbage, slop ads. Gross.
Inundated with commercials — This is the worst streaming service. Tons of commercials and even spots of a nonsensical text with a literal countdown on the screen. So you’re just sitting there watching a fricking countdown. Unbelievable.
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
App Lies to get purchases — Our TV app showed that in order to watch one of our baseball games to “click here” for the three day pass, so we did, and then AFTER we purchased it, the app did a bait and switch and stated the game was not…
False Advertising — Sling advertised that the Rangers/Astros game was Live. Further, I entered my Zip code and Sling confirmed this series would be available. I bought Sling specifically to watch this series. After buying, the…
Deceptive marketing — Purchase this to watch the World Cup under the assumption from marketing that I was able to. After purchase it then told me I could not actually watch the World Cup. This is not the first time sling TV has used…
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.