We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 6.21.2 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 6.21.2, updated 2026-09-10.
What the analysis found
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.
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.
Trial converts to a charge
Dishonest App. — Despite cancelling my free trial days before it was set to renew, YouCam continues its attempts to charge me a yearly subscription fee. Unethical behavior.
Unauthorized charges over and over! — After trying the free trial and canceling the membership a very long time ago, I was still charged $84.39 for a “yearly subscription.” Apple refused to reimburse the charges and wouldn’t do anything…
Scamed charged for free trial Very disappointed!!!!!! — I’m very disappointed from the creators of this app. This application was purchased a free trial from my child without my permission and I requested refund about 20 minutes after the…
Hard to cancel
Very malicious. BEWARE NEARLY FAKE REVIEWS. They will steal your money and make it hard to cancel tr — In the end I lost 50$ for a little iPhone makeup editor, which is a straight copy of other apps.
No way to cancel 24 hour trial — 20 hours ago I signed up for a 24 hour trial of YouCam Perfect Pro. I found the AI object remover was not able to handle the task I needed done. Now I find I can find no way to cancel and get my $79.99…
They stole my money after a free trial — Don’t try their free trial. There’s not much to do in this app and if you forget to cancel before the end of the trial, they will charge a whole year. This app is useless almost $80 for something…
Paywall blocks the basics
Now you have to pay for the things — Before you were able to Edith things without having to pay, but now they charge you to be able to edit
Scam, if I could do 0 I would — I ordered the premium just to see what it was like because pretty much anything and everything on that app requires premium. You literally can’t even choose the color of your photo unless it’s a premium…
Downgrade over the years — Ive had this app for years now, but over the years they have included paywalls to even get basic editing tools. What a disappointment. I have been a paying customer but i think it’s ridiculous on how this app…
Reports of unexpected charges
Going to steal your money SCAM — This USED TO BE a pretty good app. They made changes to their terms of service (after they stole my money of course), and now I have a bunch of credits that are worthless because I can’t use them. Please…
I wish I had read the reviews before subscribing. — I’m extremely disappointed with my experience. My subscription automatically renewed for an entire year, and I contacted support as soon as I noticed the charge. I explained that I did…
Scam — I really liked this app, but I cancelled my subscription, and they still charged me the next month. They wouldn’t even let me provide a screenshot proving that I canceled the subscription and I lost my appeal with Apple and had to…
What this app sells
From the store listing. Billing terms are read from each purchase’s name — the stores don’t publish them — so treat them as a strong hint, not a disclosure.
Show 7 more purchases we couldn’t categorise
These are really on sale; we just can’t tell from the name whether they recur.
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.