DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
UrbanSitter: Find Child Care
UrbanSitter, Inc. · Lifestyle

What’s the catch? Reports of unexpected charges — reported by 32 users.

Analyzed automatically from 3 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.

1 on the catch list · analyzedConfidence: Low3 signal sources503 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-04
 Which version this describes

This analysis describes version 14.10.1 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 14.10.1, updated 2026-09-04.

What the analysis found

Each finding shows what agreed and how strongly. Automated analysis

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.

Reported by users: Reports of unexpected charges
Reported by 32 usersReported by users, not measured — nothing we can inspect could show this either wayview 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: Raised by 32 distinct reviewers — 6.4% of the 503 reviews scanned on this store leg (App Store).

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.

Reported by users: Hard to cancel
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
Cancelling the subscription is blocked, hidden, multi-step, or simply does not take effect.
What we saw: Hard to cancel: raised by 11 distinct reviewers (2.2% of 503 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.

Reports of unexpected charges

Suspicious Business Practices — The app is clunky, with several jobs shown as available being outdated. The background check does not request all information at once which is tedious/annoying, they also requested a picture of my social…

2★ · App Store · 2026-09-24

Job seekers avoid this app — Finding job full time/ part time is difficult through this app. The membership fee is high and they do background check still you apply multiple jobs through them you won’t be able to land any. I gave up after…

1★ · App Store · 2026-06-05

Scam — No sitters available they refused to refund after I had the app for 2 days and cancelled.

1★ · App Store · 2026-05-30

Hard to cancel

Imposible to cancel — I used the service when I was in California and it were great, but I don’t live in the US. I live currently in puerto rico and it’s impossible to cancel the suscripción that they make you have in order Together…

1★ · App Store · 2025-11-04

Decent app, bad subscription policies — This app is ok for finding a babysitter, but they make it unnecessarily hard to cancel your membership. You should be able to cancel through the app instead of having to log on through a web-browser…

3★ · App Store · 2021-12-31

Impossible to cancel — You cannot cancel through the app, instead it tells you to go through your browser. I did that and it’s nit an option. Went through the support tab and the instructions and link there don’t work either.

1★ · App Store · 2021-10-11

How the automated analysis works

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

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.

 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 2026-10-04 Version analyzed: 14.10.13 independent signals503 reviews scannedConfidence: LowNot human-reviewedVocabulary v1.13Methodology v1.3
Signals run: user reviews, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure. Not yet checked: SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text and the app manifest.