What’s the catch? Hard to cancel — 2 independent sources agree, backed by user reviews and the app's own on-screen text.
Analyzed automatically from 6 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.
App Store
This analysis describes version 12.2.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 12.2.0, updated 2026-08-20.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 12.0.2 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 20.0.1, updated 2026-10-01.
The app has been updated since this analysis. The findings on this page describe version 12.0.2, not the version now listed on the store.
Release notes for the newer versions, in the developer’s own words:
Version 20.0.1 · 2026-10-01
No release notes were provided for this version.
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.
Positive evidence 2
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
One source only — shown, not confirmed 3
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.
Hard to cancel
HOW CAN I CANCEL THIS SUBSCRIPTION!!! This is impossible to cancel. I tried in the app - nothing! I went into Google Play - nothing! I don't want you to charge me for any more months!!! I subscribed yesterday for one month. I don't want…
The sites "likes", from people that haven't selected you at all. This has been proven with contact I have had with the people in question. The site is cooked in it's process, when opening the site also, it automatically magically selects…
False ban reported on me. impossible to reach anyone and get responses from Zoosk. Also, can't cancel membership, yet I'm banned. Don't use this site. Not much turnover, over the years, of "dates". Same people on here for years. I will…
Aggressive ad load
TOO many ads. Garbage app! Did away with the annoying ads. Kudos for that. As far as the availability of available women, different story. Either women that have had a profile for months (or longer) and probably don't even check it any…
Too many ads. this dating site has changed. You cannot look at who viewed you without looking at ADSThat go on and on Sometimes not being able to get back to who viewed you. There are a lot of good things , but it's changed so much on…
THIS IS THE WORST APP, NOBODY CAN CONTACT , U CANT CONTACT OTHERS, LOTS OF COMMERCIALS THAT INTERRUPT YOUR MUSIC , AND THERE IS NO WAY TO CONTACT HELP. STAY OFF THIS SITE ITS ALL FAKE
Paywall blocks the basics
cash grab. you can't do anything without paying for a membership. you can't message, even if you both like each other. you still need to pay to even talk to anyone. . also if someone likes you. you can't see their profile without…
Can't do anything productive on the all without paying. Maybe free to download but after that all you can do is window shop unless you want to pay and not cheap.
Just another cash grab app. you can search. But anything else hits the paywall. Likes. messages. What is the point if you have to pay to do anything?!
What this app sells
How the automated analysis works
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.
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.