DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
Uber - Rides, Eats, Hotels
Uber Technologies, Inc. · Lifestyle

We analyzed this app across 6 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.

Nothing unfair corroborated · unauditedConfidence: High6 signal sources4,973 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-06
 Which version this describes

App Store

This analysis describes version 3.741.10001 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 3.741.10001, updated 2026-09-28.

Google Play

This analysis describes version 4.648.10003 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version VARY, updated 2026-10-02.

What the analysis found

Each finding shows what agreed and how strongly. Automated analysis

Positive evidence 2

Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.

No advertising SDKs
Measuredfrom SDKs in the app packageartefact 925f893289cd…
No advertising or mediation SDK of any kind was found in the package.
What we saw: No advertising or mediation SDK among the 4 SDKs detected in the package
Developer says data deletion can be requested
Measuredfrom the store listingview evidence
The developer's data-safety disclosure on the store states that users can request deletion of their data, or the app's own text offers a way to delete the account. This restates what the developer declares; it is not a test of whether deletion works. Apple publishes no equivalent disclosure, so on an Apple-only listing only the app's own text can support it.
What we saw: The developer's store data-safety disclosure states that data deletion can be requested; we have not seen a deletion control in the app's own text

One source only — shown, not confirmed 4

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.

In the app's own text: Hard to cancel
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is the app's own on-screen text.artefact 925f893289cd…
Cancelling the subscription is blocked, hidden, multi-step, or simply does not take effect.
What we saw: Sells a subscription in-app but ships no cancel or manage-subscription text of its own, leaving the store's settings as the only exit
In the app's own text: A plan is pre-picked as 'recommended'
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is the app's own on-screen text.artefact 925f893289cd…
The purchase screen arrives with one plan already framed as the recommended or most popular choice, so the default is the app's preference rather than the user's. We do not compare the plans' prices, and only the app's own text evidences this, so it is shown, but never counted as a charge.
What we saw: Purchase screen steers the choice: "Most popular"
Reported by users: Price keeps rising
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
The price of the paid tier has been raised on existing users.
What we saw: Price keeps rising: raised by 19 distinct reviewers (0.7% of 2566 reviews scanned)
Reported by users: Reports of unexpected charges
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
A large number of reviewers report being charged when they did not expect it — including being charged after cancelling during a free trial, or when a trial turned into a paid plan without warning. We cannot see anyone's billing, so this is published as an attributed user report: what reviewers say, and how many of them said it.
What we saw: Surprise charges: raised by 35 distinct reviewers (1.4% of 2566 reviews scanned)

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.

Price keeps rising

This is absolutely ridiculous. At the time of booking, it displays one amount and at the time of payment, the price suddenly increases? This is disgusting.

2★ · Google Play · 2026-10-04

Your prices are to low for the drivers do you think about fue price are going up? You need to adjust please these people are working to put something in the table

1★ · Google Play · 2026-10-04

very bad app due to price increased suddenly and booking take a lot of time

1★ · Google Play · 2026-10-04

Reports of unexpected charges

worst service, driver dropped me before location and was accompanying a person too..Got no refund .

1★ · Google Play · 2026-10-04

Great drivers but the app itself is terrible. Drivers don't see messages or phone calls. Directions to pickup spot disappeared permanently after a notification popped up. Map doesn't show your location in relation to the pickup spot…

1★ · Google Play · 2026-10-04

not enough space to explain but ive been using them abt 8 years and will never use them again! steer way clear of this company driver left me while inside best buy mid trip n company said oh well he's allowed to leave even though that's…

1★ · Google Play · 2026-10-04

How the automated analysis works

Automated, corroborated, and never human-reviewed without a person.

This assessment is produced automatically. Six independent signals are read — user reviews, SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text, the app manifest, 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.

 Not yet human-reviewed

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.

 How this page was produced
Analyzed 2026-10-06 Version analyzed: 3.741.10001 (App Store), 4.648.10003 (Google Play)6 independent signals4,973 reviews scannedConfidence: HighNot human-reviewedVocabulary v1.13Methodology v1.3
Signals run: user reviews, SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text, the app manifest, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure.