SorAI borrows Sora’s name. Buyers report confusion.

The screenshots tell the story.

The two featured images show Sora 2 in the advertised interface. Expand the gallery for the remaining original images. These are App Store promotional assets, not runtime tests or evidence of a historical rename.

See all 2 additional screenshots

A near-match name. Sora 2 on display. A different seller.

The name on the listing.

App name

SorAI - AI Video Generator

Developer / seller

DES GRADNJE d.o.o.

“SorAI” in the title. “Sora 2” inside the advertising.

SorAI closely compresses the familiar wording Sora AI into a near-match name for the same kind of product: AI video generation. The concern is reinforced by the original promotional images: the Create video screen names Sora 2, and the library cards carry the same model label. This is more specific than a generic AI-themed app name.

Sora and Sora 2 are OpenAI product/model names, as documented in OpenAI’s own announcement. The seller here is DES GRADNJE d.o.o. Our assessment is that SorAI trades on Sora’s recognition and creates a misleading impression of connection. That assessment is supported by the screenshot wording and an actual buyer’s reported confusion; it does not establish that the developer holds no licence or that a court has ruled on infringement.

The US description’s disclaimer concerns unreliable AI-generated output and the user’s responsibilities. It does not clearly identify the app as unaffiliated with OpenAI. A developer reply to a review does explicitly state that SorAI is independently developed and unaffiliated with OpenAI, and another acknowledges that branding and feature names caused confusion. Those statements establish the developer’s stated independence; they do not grant permission to use a brand or explain the Sora 2 promotion.

Sources: E1, page 5 promotional images; E3, E9, E10. Live checks: 25 October 2026.

The policy names other providers. OpenAI reports Sora’s shutdown.

The linked privacy policy and terms name Kling, Grok Imagine Video, Runway Imagine Video and Minimax Hailuo, with several model variants. They allow providers and models to change and make no promise that any particular model will remain available. Neither reviewed document lists Sora or OpenAI. The lists are expressly non-exhaustive, so the omission alone does not prove which backend the app uses.

OpenAI’s current Sora announcement says the product is no longer available as of 26 April 2026. Its help article gives the same web/app closure date and names 24 September 2026 as the API discontinuation date. Both precede the October evidence capture; the web/app date also precedes this app’s recorded July release. This makes the continued Sora 2 promotion a concrete model-access claim requiring substantiation, rather than something the name alone can establish.

The public evidence establishes a mismatch between prominent Sora 2 marketing and the providers actually named in the app’s policies. It does not establish a successful Sora API call, a tested failure to generate a video, or use of any particular alternative provider.

Sources: E1, page 5; E7, sections 4–8; E8, sections 3 and 13–14; E10–E11.

A buyer expected the official Sora. Others dispute what they received.

The live US review titled Not the Sora I Expected, displayed as 12 August, says the buyer believed they were getting the official Sora and found the SorAI name plus a Sora 2 button confusing. Another review, Very Disappointed, warns that the name can be mistaken for OpenAI’s app and reports videos without audio. The developer states in a reply that audio was improved and that the app is unaffiliated with OpenAI. The missing-audio report is therefore a historical customer complaint, not an independently established current defect.

The supplied dossier records four selected complaints: a 20 October reviewer describes a bait-and-switch feeling; a 19 October reviewer alleges a disabled refund-request button and extra payments for new submissions; another 19 October reviewer disputes a partial refund; and a 4 October reviewer reports being prompted to subscribe but unable to use features. These reviews were also visible in the fresh review-page check. Selection by the monitor does not establish their prevalence among all customers.

The current review page contains positive feedback as well, including praise for video quality. These are reports of individual experiences. The strongest branding evidence is that a buyer explicitly describes mistaking the product for official Sora, alongside the Sora 2 labels visible in the developer’s own promotional assets.

Sources: E1, pages 6–7; E9, live US reviews and material replies. Dates in the supplied dossier are preserved; live relative dates are not substituted for those captures. Original expanded review captures: E20–E21.

An established Slovenian construction business behind the company-name trail.

Apple names DES GRADNJE d.o.o. as seller and Hadzic Damir in the copyright line. The official Slovenian tax authority’s legal-entity list dated 25 October 2026 identifies DES GRADNJE, GRADBENIŠTVO, D.O.O., registration 6575862000 and tax number 29713951, as VAT-identified since 19 May 2014, with activity 43.310. The official business-register row places this company in Ljubljana, Slovenia; the tax list supplies a fresh primary-source confirmation of its business identity.

PIRS and CompanyWall give a registry-entry date of 21 March 2014. CompanyWall’s ownership page names Hadžić Damir as the sole owner and as director since 3 October 2016. The company name and the director/copyright-name match are two separate links supporting the connection to the app seller. Apple’s inspected disclosures still provide no company registration number or office that conclusively joins its account to this entity.

The construction business is not just a name in a directory. Its archived 2018 first-party website advertises facade work, painting, drywall and waterproofing. Its contact page gives the same company name and office as the business records. The About page claims a business history since 2008; that is a self-described trading history, distinct from the 2014 legal registry-entry date.

CompanyWall reports four employees and total company revenue of €339,921.90 for 2025. Those are secondary-directory company figures, not verified SorAI revenue, and do not establish what proportion, if any, came from apps. The records point to an established commercial business rather than a company created when SorAI’s public app record began in July 2026.

The reviewed developer catalog still contains only SorAI, app 6778837255. Searches of seller names, the copyright name, both policy-document identifiers, the bundle ID and contact domain did not substantiate a second app or shared operator with this publication’s earlier cases. Same-name people, related-app recommendations and shared infrastructure are insufficient to establish those connections.

Sources: E1, E3, E6, E14–E16, E23–E26, E31. Official tax file dated 25 October 2026; historical website observations are explicitly dated.

An old construction website, a newer contact domain, and no working app presentation site.

Business directories link the construction company to des-gradnje.si, whose 2018 archived pages contain a proper company presentation, service descriptions and contact information. The current Register.si lookup returns Domain not found, and a separate DNS lookup returns no domain. This does not date the website’s closure, but it prevents treating the old directory link as a functioning current support site.

SorAI’s policies and developer replies instead use a contact address at desgradnje.store. The .store registry records the domain’s registration on 25 February 2026, before the app’s July release. The public record redacts the registrant, so it does not independently identify the person or company that registered it.

The contact domain did not provide a usable public company or product website in this check: the HTTP page displayed a domain-assignment placeholder and HTTPS failed certificate validation. Mail-routing records do exist for the domain. Website availability and email delivery are separate; no email was sent or delivery tested.

The more precise transparency concern is therefore the lack of a working, clearly linked presentation and support website for this paid AI app. It is not a claim that the construction company never had a website. The historic company site, current contact domain and Google Docs policies form a fragmented public identity without an explicit legal-entity link in the app documents.

Sources: E7–E9, E24–E30. Website, registry and DNS observations made 25 October 2026; historic business pages captured August 2018.

Paid subscriptions alongside non-trader declarations in Germany and Ireland.

Both German and Irish App Store provider panels name DES GRADNJE d.o.o. and state that it has not identified itself as a trader for this app. Apple displays its EEA consumer-rights warning for agreements with that provider. Neither inspected panel disclosed a business address or country.

The listing offers paid purchases and automatic-renewal subscriptions under a company seller name. That commercial activity makes the non-trader declaration a concrete status question for Apple to review. The report records the displayed declaration without independently deciding the legal classification or treating the warning as the removal of every legal protection.

The fresh company research adds a specific commercial record: the same-name Slovenian business is listed as VAT-identified and has a long construction trading history. If this is the app seller entity, that is relevant context for reviewing the app’s non-trader declaration. VAT status and App Store trader classification are different concepts; the tax record alone does not settle the app’s legal status.

Sources: E1, pages 2–4; E4–E5. Both storefronts loaded successfully on 25 October 2026. Company context: E23 and E31.

Transparency flag: Google Docs instead of a proper company website.

No separate Developer Website link was visible in the reviewed listing. The company directs buyers to Google Docs for its public terms and privacy policy, without linking a dedicated product presentation or support website. Google Docs is a document service with free access options, rather than a company presentation site. The developer’s actual Google subscription or hosting expenditure is not established.

In our assessment, this is an inadequate current public-facing presentation for a company taking recurring payments and processing users’ photos and prompts. A buyer should be able to identify the operator, understand the product and paid offers, and find a clear support route in one coherent company or product website. The linked documents do not identify the legal company or its registration, and the historic construction site does not explain SorAI. We flag that fragmented company identity and accountability as an additional warning sign.

The documents define the service as SorAI and provide a contact route on desgradnje.store, but do not name DES GRADNJE d.o.o., give a company registration number or specify a governing country. The terms use the generic wording applicable laws. Buyers must rely on Apple’s seller field to connect the app brand to a legal operator.

The privacy policy describes sending prompts, uploaded images and generation details through a backend to outside AI providers, retaining generation history, using Firebase cloud infrastructure and using Apphud for subscriptions. Apple’s label already declares identity-linked user content and unlinked purchase data; it is not a Data Not Collected label. The policy’s broader technical and storage descriptions are relevant to anyone uploading personal photos, without establishing an independently observed privacy violation.

The terms disclaim guarantees about model availability and output quality and direct App Store refunds to Apple. A customer allegation about an inactive in-app refund button does not establish that Apple’s separate refund route is unavailable. The report does not treat a reviewer’s refund dispute as an independently verified payment decision.

Sources: E1, pages 2, 4 and 6; E3, E7–E9. Complete linked documents checked 25 October 2026. Google Docs access options: E22. Historic and current domain context: E24–E30.

A documented branding concern, without an invented rename story.

Apple’s 2.3/2.3.1 rules require accurate metadata and marketing; 2.3.7 addresses inappropriate trademarked terms in names and metadata. Rule 4.1(a) addresses minor changes to another app’s name or interface, 4.1(b) impersonation and 4.1(c) unauthorized use of another developer’s brand or product name in an app name/icon. Rule 5.2.1 covers intellectual property and misleading or copycat representations. These provisions are relevant to the near-match title, Sora 2 promotional labels and documented customer confusion; an enforcement decision or legal infringement ruling was not found.

OpenAI’s published guidance calls for accurate model references and says model names in app titles can confuse users. Merely saying an app is independent does not establish trademark permission. Conversely, accurate use of a model reference is not by itself proof of a false affiliation claim. Here the near-match product name, model promotion and buyer confusion must be assessed together.

The earliest usable archived US page found in the exact-URL capture index is dated 21 September 2026. It already shows SorAI - AI Video Generator, AI Videos from Text or Image and DES GRADNJE d.o.o. The 24 October replay and the supplied dossier show the same identity. These records do not establish a generic launch followed by a Sora rename or a technique used to bypass App Review.

Sources: E10, E12–E13, E17–E19. Exact, query-free and historical-slug/storefront archive variants attempted; only verified replay text is used for chronology.

The records behind this report.

The supplied analysis is a single capture, not a monitored before/after history. Customer reviews are attributed allegations; model access and payments were not tested. The complete metadata-cleaned PDF retains all visible source pages and contact details. Source-PDF hashes are independently calculated; hashes printed for an unavailable raw evidence archive were not independently verified.