Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 517 user reviews, the store listing and its privacy label. We have not scanned the app's package, so nothing on this page was read from inside the app itself.
This analysis describes version 3.18.13 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 3.18.13, updated 2026-09-16.
What the analysis found
The catch list 2
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.
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.
Tracking and data collection concerns
I'm so disappointed that this app was hacked due to terrible security. Hackers exposed that not only are we constantly spammed with ads for revenue, but app owners have been selling our data without our consent including email addresses…
UPDATE: I uninstalled this app because it was hacked and they said they weren't selling information but do not believe them! I have a data breech listed from right before they were hacked! I had to change all my information. Way too many…
if you haven't learned about it yet, go look at the breach of security they had very recently (like just a couple of weeks prior to this review). They sold all users info to 3rd parties including but not limited to, banking information…
Aggressive ad load
I'm so disappointed that this app was hacked due to terrible security. Hackers exposed that not only are we constantly spammed with ads for revenue, but app owners have been selling our data without our consent including email addresses…
not sure why forced ads can play with no issue but the lucky draw ads are constantly unavailable. Why do ads that have zero positive impact on users play no problem, but the ones we need for a reason are always unavailable?
trash nothing but adds. junk!
What this app sells
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.