What’s the catch? Reports of unexpected charges — reported by 62 users.
Analyzed automatically from 3 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.
This analysis describes version 106.5.1 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 106.5.1, updated 2026-09-29.
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.
One source only — shown, not confirmed 1
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 of unexpected charges
Stole my money — I was not able to access my tickets. After trying for hours I contacted the chat with your customer service representative and was told to send back the tickets and I would receive a full refund. Now after two weeks you…
They steal my money — I really don’t recommend it , its a nightmare
Parking scam — Ordered parking passes for a concert at MVP arena in NJ. Arrived before show my ticket didn’t work, arena security said everyone was having issues. Bought new parking, reached out to Stub hub with issue once parked, and NO…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Bait and switch — I purchased 2 tickets to watch the Raiders vs saints New Orleans. I purchased these tickets in May when the NFL schedule came out. I purchased tickets in section 132. Fast forward to the day of the game, hotel stay…
Honestly don’t waste your money — StubHub apparently thinks “FanProtect” means protecting your money from ever finding its way back to you. I bought two tickets two months in advance, paid for the best seats available, and received them…
Bait and Switch — StubHub will take your money, then refuse to honor the purchase. They take your money right away, and then “escalate” a refund “request” to tie up your money until after the event, preventing you from being able to…
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.