Five Notebook lookalikes. One Google identity.

The screenshots tell the story.

Original review captures lead the evidence. Product pages and promotional artwork follow in the expandable gallery. User allegations are attributed; no app installation or purchase was performed.

See all 10 additional screenshots

A familiar Google identity can lead to the wrong purchase.

The name on the listing.

App name

Five independently published Notebook / LM study apps

Developer / seller

Warda Saleem; Muhammad Fareed Ud Deen; Muhammad Islam; David Jay Cederbaum; Kajan Navaratnam

Developer country · App ID 6803688551

Unknown · Non-trader; no business country declared

Apple DE/IE provider disclosure checked 4 November 2026; E7.

Developer country · App ID 6789536022

Unknown · Non-trader; no business country declared

Apple DE/IE provider disclosure checked 4 November 2026; E8.

Developer country · App ID 6763682985

Pakistan · Trader · Toba Tek Singh

Apple DE/IE provider disclosure checked 4 November 2026; E9.

Developer country · App ID 6806278584

United Kingdom · Trader · Osidge

Apple DE/IE provider disclosure checked 4 November 2026; E10.

Developer country · App ID 6790412761

United Kingdom · Trader · Bristol

Apple DE/IE provider disclosure checked 4 November 2026; E11.

The scam risk: paying the wrong publisher

These apps borrow the recognition of a Google product at the point where users decide what to download. A familiar arch-shaped icon, Notebook or NotebookLM in the title, and promises of quizzes, flashcards and audio summaries can reinforce the impression that a listing belongs to Google. The seller is a different publisher, and the subscription purchases that publisher’s service.

The concern is not simply that an independent developer charges money. It is that brand imitation can influence the buying decision before the customer understands who supplies the product. The mistaken-purchase review shows precisely that reported outcome: a buyer says the presentation led them to expect Google NotebookLM and paid on that basis. The developer’s reply acknowledges the confusion rather than disputing that the names look similar.

App Scam DB flags these five listings as suspected scams because the repeated brand imitation creates a risk of deceptive sales. The strongest direct evidence of a mistaken purchase concerns Kajan’s app; the other four must be assessed on their own branding, descriptions and disclosures. Their availability demonstrates that they passed Apple’s distribution review, not that Apple established their affiliation with Google or guaranteed their claims.

Recurring billing makes an identity mistake consequential: the US weekly offers range from $4.99 to $9.99. A customer seeking Google’s product can instead enter a recurring payment relationship with another seller. Store approval and a familiar-looking icon should not be treated as proof that the publisher is Google.

E7–E12; E29–E30. Native Apple listings, review and developer reply, official Google identity and applicable branding/review rules.

The same recognizable shape, five variations

This is a repeated Google-brand imitation pattern: concentric rounded arches, a hollow center, blue/lilac tones and Notebook-focused names. Warda adds a metallic-looking tile and depth; Fareed uses clean taller bands; Islam tilts and fans the strokes; David overlaps thinner arches; Kajan keeps a compact upright arrangement. None is the Google-published app.

Google’s genuine app is currently titled Gemini Notebook. Google announced the rename from NotebookLM on 16 July 2026. Its 19 May 2025 launch illustration below preserves the earlier black arch logo, while the current Apple icon above preserves today’s colored mark. These are dated official references, not earlier versions of the five investigated icons.

The combination of a recognizable icon and a brand-led title can make a separate paid product look like Google’s own study tool. Similarity is assessed visually; no automatic percentage is presented as a copying or infringement verdict.

E12; E13; E14; E29.

Who publishes each app?

The table uses Apple’s numeric publisher IDs, not name-based guesses. All five primary apps were available in the US, German and Irish product pages at the time of this investigation. A store availability check does not verify the app’s performance or permissions.

The country is the business country declared to Apple. It does not establish nationality, residence, where the code was written or whether a claim is fraudulent. Non-trader declarations do not establish a country.

DE and IE provider disclosures, exact-ID Apple records; E7, E8, E9, E10, E11.

The weekly plan versus the separate yearly offer

The annualized amounts below estimate continuous service at the listed weekly rate. They are not actual billed totals. Whether plans provide identical benefits was not tested. Paid subscriptions and high prices alone do not establish fraud; confusion about which service a person is buying is the central risk.

Annualized estimate = weekly price × 365 ÷ 7; actual billing dates and cancellation determine charges. E7, E8, E9, E10, E11.

Warda Saleem: NotebookLM in the code, privacy text as terms

AI Notebook: Quiz & Flashcards uses the bundle identifier com.ws.notebooklm. Its other exact-ID app, AI Chatbot · Ask AI Assistant (6771800046), uses com.ws.claude. These stable identifiers connect both products to account 6771797952; they do not establish a connection to any other seller.

The homepage is a minimal Google Sites page bearing the developer name. The listed terms URL displays a Terms & Conditions banner followed by the same Privacy Policy text, rather than explaining the subscription agreement. The privacy policy describes technical diagnostics, usage insights and sending selected input to external AI providers. It also says the product is not designed for children under nine, while the store’s age rating is 4+. Those are different policy/rating statements that the publisher has not reconciled.

The US listing includes favorable study-tool reviews. Those do not resolve the icon or legal-page findings, but no claim is made that every user reports a bad experience. Germany and Ireland both show non-trader disclosures; no account-linked country was established.

E7; E15; E16; E27.

Muhammad Fareed Ud Deen: NotebookLM outside, MemoAI inside

App for AI NotebookLM & Quiz puts Google’s NotebookLM product name in its title and uses the subtitle Built on Google Gemini API. Inside the description it repeatedly calls the product MemoAI. The visible sales name therefore draws on Google’s product while the body describes a separate app.

Google’s Gemini API is a real developer service. The subtitle alone is not proof of a false technical claim, and no connection was tested. Even genuine API use does not make a product the official NotebookLM app or establish permission to adopt its mark. The branding concern is the combined title/icon presentation.

Four exact-ID apps share account 6781671107: Ember, CAuth, this Notebook app and AniCompass. All were checked against Apple records. The MF Apps Google Sites hub has working privacy, terms-of-use and EULA pages. Its broad policy covers multiple app types and third-party processing; it does not establish an independent Google partnership. Both EU storefronts show non-trader statements.

E8; E17; E18; E29; E27.

Muhammad Islam: Pakistan declaration and an unrelated policy name

Apple’s German and Irish disclosures identify Muhammad Islam as a trader with a business location in Toba Tek Singh, Pakistan. This country attribution is directly tied to app 6763682985; it is not inferred from the name. Eight exact-ID products share publisher 1805174466.

Notebook: AI Quiz & Notes links to a policy headed AutoQuiz AI - AI Quiz & Learning App. That document discusses sending user quiz/text input and technical request information to OpenAI. The shared public support identifier links the legal pages back to this publisher, but the wrong product name leaves the scope unclear. His terms still use [Insert Your Country/State] in their governing-law clause.

The additional current review shown above alleges that the app poses as Google’s Gemini Notebook. That allegation is supported by the visible icon resemblance, but its legal conclusion remains the reviewer’s statement. No purchase, account access or hidden-data-flow test was performed.

E9; E19; E20; E27.

David Jay Cederbaum: UK trader, local-only claims

Notebook Flashcards & Quiz LM is published by account 6804164097. Apple’s DE/IE disclosure identifies a trader in Osidge, United Kingdom. Its description uses QuizLM as the product identity and claims on-device document reading and local storage.

The Google Sites hub supplies legal/support pages. Its policy and terms are written for an iOS app despite this primary product being Mac-only. The privacy document makes a consistent local-only promise: no content transmission, analytics or collection. Unlike the broader policies in this report, it supplies no affirmative basis to claim that this app sends documents to a cloud service. The actual implementation was not tested.

An additional search-indexed Apple listing, Smart Pritner App: PrintPAL (6804164095), identifies the same seller and business-contact details. Fresh product requests returned 404 and an exact-ID lookup returned no record. This is an earlier indexed association, not proof of a ban or a second account.

E10; E21; E22; E34.

Kajan Navaratnam: acknowledged confusion and a broken reply link

The most direct consumer evidence belongs to Notebook Quiz & Flashcards LM. A reviewer dated 21 August reports a mistaken purchase. The developer reply dated 31 August acknowledges the confusion, explains that this is a separate product and points to /contact on the linked website. That exact route now returns 404; the homepage still offers an email contact.

Apple’s DE/IE trader declaration gives Bristol, United Kingdom. The linked Firebase site calls itself Kanjan AI, while Apple identifies Kajan Navaratnam. Its six advertised projects - Tempo, Ledger Lite, Margins, Plainweather, Breathe Ten and Shipit - have demo requests rather than verifiable store identifiers. The site’s claims of 30+ shipped apps, eight years and a 4.8 average rating were not independently corroborated. One live Mac product was established for this Apple account; this does not rule out work elsewhere.

The listing makes the absolute claim No hallucinated facts, then warns that Notebook can make mistakes. It explicitly describes cloud-generated answers. Its multi-service policy also describes diagnostics and hosting logs, but does not clearly separate website activity from this app’s collection.

E11; E23; E24; E26; E28.

Sixteen products tied to the five Apple accounts

Each row below is backed by an exact app-ID record containing the same numeric publisher ID as its primary Notebook app. Release dates describe the app release, not the creation date of the developer account. Appearance here establishes an account association, not a fraud verdict for every related app.

E27.

What links the accounts - and what does not

The repeated icons, study features, Notebook/LM naming and hosted legal pages show a common marketing pattern. They do not, by themselves, prove a common business or the same developer behind different names. No exact contact identifier or publisher-controlled infrastructure identifier was found connecting the five sellers to one another.

The supplied Join for Team Meetings file belongs to a sixth distinct account, Muhammad Abdullah Zahid. Its maz-apps legal hub, support identifier, publisher ID and six-product portfolio do not match these five. It remains a separate investigation, linked below and included as supplied contextual material in the dossier.

Exact-name and support-identifier searches did not establish a corroborated company registration, professional identity or independently documented fraud case beyond the evidence described here. Same-name results were excluded. No claim of account suspension, identity fraud or deliberate review evasion is made for these five accounts.

E27; E32; E33.

Read the privacy promises app by app

All five Apple pages display Data Not Collected. That label does not mean that no network request can occur: Apple excludes some real-time processing when data is discarded after servicing the request. A cloud AI feature therefore does not automatically prove a false label.

The concrete concern is whether the linked policy accurately describes this specific product, and whether diagnostics or other retained information require disclosure. Warda and Kanjan describe broader technical collection; MF Apps describes several possible services; Islam names a different app; David consistently claims local-only behavior. No app was installed and no network traffic was inspected.

E31; E15, E17, E19, E21, E24.

History: do not invent a harmless launch

The supplied dossiers are one-off captures taken on 4 November 2026. Apple’s first-release dates range from May to August; a release date alone does not show the original name, icon or App Review submission.

Two usable archived Kajan pages from 22 August and 21 September retain the current title, seller and the same icon asset identifier. They do not document a generic-to-branded transformation. The other supplied current replays loaded, while wider history searches met a mixture of empty indexes, outages and timeouts. No dated rebranding sequence was established for these five apps.

E28; E7, E8, E9, E10, E11.

Why the presentation warrants an App Store review

Google’s brand guidance prohibits imitating its distinctive visual identity and adopting brand elements in ways that imply an affiliation that does not exist. Informational references to a service are different from making a separate product look like that service. The icon family, NotebookLM title and documented mistaken purchase make the affiliation question concrete.

Apple’s rules on accurate presentation, copycats, intellectual property and privacy disclosures are relevant to these observations. This report identifies apparent branding and disclosure problems; it does not claim a court finding, Google permission decision or Apple enforcement action.

E29; E30; E12; E11.

The records behind this report.

The written investigation is followed by all 83 pages of the six supplied dossiers, including the separately identified Join analysis. The source appendix retains its visible contacts and original automatic comparisons; those comparison percentages are not adopted as copying verdicts. Original-source checksums are independently calculated. Raw ZIP archives referenced inside the supplied PDFs were not supplied. Complete source pages are retained; current findings and the correct Google reference are explained above. No installation, payment, login, developer contact or complaint submission took place.