Stop Shadow Donation Pages

GoFundMe · Public letter

Read the letter from state attorneys general to GoFundMe.

Explore what they alleged, what they demanded, and how GoFundMe responded. Plus, our commentary on why this exchange is so important.

This letter is not law, and this page is commentary. We are not lawyers, this is not legal advice, and we do not allege any legal wrongdoing. We translate what the letter means for fundraising ethics and best practice.

Select a highlighted passage to see what it means. Start with the six demands, or explore the letter yourself.

Start the six demands Read the original
Date
Sent to
GoFundMe
From
Attorneys general and charity regulators representing 21 states (signatures, pages 5–7)
Kind
Public letter. Not law, a lawsuit, a court finding or a settlement.
Reply
GoFundMe answered on (see the comparison)

The letter

Original: Multistate letter to GoFundMe, 3 Mar 2026, 7 pages. Download the original PDF · Official copy · Text view

Page 1 of 7 of the 3 Mar 2026 multistate letter to GoFundMe. Its full text is in the text view below.
Page 1 of 7
Page 2 of 7 of the 3 Mar 2026 multistate letter to GoFundMe. Its full text is in the text view below.
Page 2 of 7
Page 3 of 7 of the 3 Mar 2026 multistate letter to GoFundMe. Its full text is in the text view below.
Page 3 of 7
Page 4 of 7 of the 3 Mar 2026 multistate letter to GoFundMe. Its full text is in the text view below.
Page 4 of 7
Page 5 of 7 of the 3 Mar 2026 multistate letter to GoFundMe. Its full text is in the text view below.
Page 5 of 7 · signatures
Page 6 of 7 of the 3 Mar 2026 multistate letter to GoFundMe. Its full text is in the text view below.
Page 6 of 7 · signatures
Page 7 of 7 of the 3 Mar 2026 multistate letter to GoFundMe. Its full text is in the text view below.
Page 7 of 7 · signatures
All 16 notes, by page

Page 1

  1. A Pages made without asking Regulator allegation

Page 2

  1. B Losing control of the name Regulator allegation
  2. C Wrong names, logos and purposes Regulator allegation
  3. D The gift went to a fund, not the charity Regulator allegation
  4. E It looked like the charity's own page Regulator allegation
  5. F A tip set by default Regulator allegation
  6. G Ranking above the charity's own site Regulator allegation
  7. H The reporting the letter cites Source citation

Page 3

  1. I The donor loses say over the gift Regulator allegation
  2. J Concerns, not conclusions Legal qualification

Page 4

  1. K Prove the pages are gone, and that consent comes first Regulator demand
  2. L The nonprofit should not have to do the cleanup Regulator demand
  3. M Stop outranking the charity Regulator demand
  4. N Tell donors who gets the money, who controls it, and what it costs Regulator demand
  5. O No implied connection Regulator demand
  6. P Review whether tips belong to the charities Regulator demand

Pages 5–7 carry the signatures of officials from 21 states. They have no notes.

Note

The coalition’s six demands, and GoFundMe’s reply

GoFundMe answered on 13 Mar 2026. Its statements are its own account. Neither document is a finding that GoFundMe did or did not comply, and nothing here grades it.

  1. Regulator demand Demand 1 of 6 · letter page 4

    Prove the pages are gone, and that consent comes first

    Provide proof that GoFundMe has removed all unauthorized donation web pages and is requiring prior consent for charity donation web pages.

    Platform statement GoFundMe, · Section 1

    “nonprofit pages are not published unless and until an organization affirmatively claims and activates the page through GoFundMe’s opt-in flow.”

    GoFundMe says it removed nonprofit pages for organizations that had not opted in, beginning in late October 2025, and that pages now go up only after an organization claims and activates one. It says the claim process checks that the person claiming represents the nonprofit.

    Response, pages 2–3

  2. Regulator demand Demand 2 of 6 · letter page 4

    The nonprofit should not have to do the cleanup

    Demonstrate the takedown procedures implemented to remove unauthorized donation pages without action by the charity.

    Platform statement GoFundMe, · Section 2

    “Because unclaimed nonprofit pages have already been removed, charities are not required to take any action to remove such pages.”

    GoFundMe answers that no takedown procedure is needed from charities because the unclaimed pages had already been removed. For pages found later, the response (section 1, page 3) says only that GoFundMe “will promptly investigate and remediate as appropriate.”

    Response, page 4

  3. Regulator demand Demand 3 of 6 · letter page 4

    Stop outranking the charity

    Explain how GoFundMe has modified its SEO practices to ensure charities’ own fundraising campaigns or websites are not disadvantaged.

    Platform statement GoFundMe, · Section 3

    “In October 2025, we implemented changes to block search engine indexing of nonprofit pages on our platform.”

    GoFundMe says it blocked search indexing of nonprofit pages in October 2025, that the block still applied to claimed, active pages as of its March 13, 2026 letter, and that unclaimed pages no longer existed to be indexed.

    Response, page 4

  4. Regulator demand Demand 4 of 6 · letter page 4

    Tell donors who gets the money, who controls it, and what it costs

    Prominently disclose all material information that would reasonably affect a person’s decision to donate, including: the legal recipient of the donation; the role and nature of any DAF sponsor; and any fees, tips, or other amounts added to or deducted from donor contributions.

    Platform statement GoFundMe, · Additional measures, section 1

    “GoFundMe provides clear and conspicuous disclosures of material information relevant to donor decision-making”

    GoFundMe says its pages and checkout disclose the legal recipient, the role of any intermediary such as PayPal Giving Fund, and fees and tips, illustrated with pages for fictional nonprofits. It describes a 2.2% + $0.30 transaction fee and an optional tip that donors can set to 0%.

    Response, pages 4–6

  5. Regulator demand Demand 5 of 6 · letter page 4

    No implied connection

    Ensure any fundraising or donation web page, campaign, or solicitation does not imply that GoFundMe is the intended charity, is operating on behalf of the charity, or has any affiliation if one does not exist.

    Platform statement GoFundMe, · Additional measures, section 2

    “We are not aware of any current fundraising page, campaign, or solicitation on our platform that represents or implies that GoFundMe is the intended charity”

    GoFundMe points to its terms, which say it is not a charity and does not solicit donations for itself or anyone else. It says it knows of no current page implying otherwise and will keep reviewing its product language.

    Response, page 7

  6. Regulator demand Demand 6 of 6 · letter page 4

    Review whether tips belong to the charities

    Review whether “tips” or analogous charges collected by GoFundMe should be redirected to the charities.

    Platform statement GoFundMe, · Additional measures, section 3

    “we do not believe it is appropriate to “redirect” tips to charities.”

    GoFundMe says tips are optional, labeled as going to GoFundMe, and can be set to 0%, and it declines to redirect them to charities. No ruling on repayment exists in either document.

    Response, page 8

Site observation From our GoFundMe record

Register status today: Reformed · Opt-in only. GoFundMe made charity pages opt-in in October 2025. On October 10, 2026, all 40 sampled pages in its charity sitemap showed an approved claim by the organization, and pages for unclaimed organizations we tried returned 404. A page field named npoProfileOptIn still reads false; GoFundMe does not document it.

This line is read from the GoFundMe platform page, which holds the dated evidence. The letter and the reply above keep their March 2026 dates.

Every note

The letter’s words are quoted exactly. The plain-English summary and “why it matters” are ours; GoFundMe’s statements are labeled as its own.

Regulator allegation Letter page 1

A Pages made without asking

GoFundMe’s creation of donation web pages for more than 1.4 million charities without their prior knowledge or consent, prompting an outcry from charities nationwide whose identities were plagiarized.

Multistate letter, 3 Mar 2026, page 1

In plain English our summary

The coalition says GoFundMe made donation pages for more than 1.4 million charities that neither knew about them nor agreed to them, relying on public reports. “Plagiarized” is the coalition’s word, not a copyright ruling.

Why it matters our view

Consent separates a page a nonprofit runs from a page run in its name. Without it, the organization has no say over the description, the payout route or the fees its donors see.

Nonprofit 3rd-party platform check

  • Did your organization ever agree to a page on this platform?
  • How would you learn that a page in your name exists?

Related: K. Prove the pages are gone, and that consent comes first · J. Concerns, not conclusions

Open page 1 of the PDF · Link to this note · Topics: Consent

Regulator allegation Letter page 2 (continues from page 1)

B Losing control of the name

The charities whose identities were taken by GoFundMe were unable to control their fundraising and brand. The unauthorized pages also created donor confusion, deception, distrust, and conflicting messaging.

Multistate letter, 3 Mar 2026, page 2

In plain English our summary

The letter says charities whose names were used could not control their own fundraising or brand, and that the pages left donors confused and receiving conflicting messages.

Why it matters our view

A nonprofit's name carries its reputation with donors. When another party's page speaks for it, the organization answers for wording and terms it never chose.

Nonprofit 3rd-party platform check

  • Does the page describe your mission the way you do?
  • Are donors seeing an appeal that conflicts with your own campaigns?

Related: C. Wrong names, logos and purposes · E. It looked like the charity's own page

Open page 2 of the PDF · Link to this note · Topics: Brand

Regulator allegation Letter page 2

C Wrong names, logos and purposes

Public reports indicate inaccurate names, logos, social media sites, and charitable purposes of many charities were displayed on the pages created by GoFundMe

Multistate letter, 3 Mar 2026, page 2

In plain English our summary

Citing public reports, the coalition says many pages showed incorrect names, logos, social media links and charitable purposes. The letter uses this to argue that consent should come before any page goes up.

Why it matters our view

An old logo or a wrong mission statement can mislead a donor about what a gift will fund. The nonprofit often learns of the error from a confused donor.

Nonprofit 3rd-party platform check

  • Are the name, logo and mission on the page current?
  • Do the social media links point to your accounts?

Related: B. Losing control of the name · K. Prove the pages are gone, and that consent comes first

Open page 2 of the PDF · Link to this note · Topics: Brand

Regulator allegation Letter page 2

D The gift went to a fund, not the charity

In some instances, the pages did not clearly disclose that contributions were made to a DAF sponsor rather than the featured charity, explain the nature of a DAF vehicle or its implications for donor intent and fund distribution

Multistate letter, 3 Mar 2026, page 2

In plain English our summary

In some cases, the letter says, pages did not make clear that a gift went to a donor-advised fund (DAF) sponsor instead of the charity shown, or explain what that meant for the donor's wishes and for how the money would be distributed.

Why it matters our view

When a DAF sponsor is the legal recipient, the sponsor holds the money and decides the grant. A donor who believes they gave to the charity directly may not know the charity could be paid late or not at all. The letter does not name a specific fund.

Nonprofit 3rd-party platform check

  • Who is named as the legal recipient before the donor pays?
  • Is the intermediary fund named, with its terms linked?

Related: I. The donor loses say over the gift · N. Tell donors who gets the money, who controls it, and what it costs

Open page 2 of the PDF · Link to this note · Topics: Money

Regulator allegation Letter page 2

E It looked like the charity's own page

According to public reports, the overall page presentations likely gave donors the impression that the pages were operated by, or directly affiliated with, the named charities—when instead, they were actually operated by GoFundMe.

Multistate letter, 3 Mar 2026, page 2

In plain English our summary

Based on public reports, the letter says the pages' presentation likely led donors to think the named charity ran them or was directly connected to them, when GoFundMe operated them.

Why it matters our view

Donors trust a page because they trust the charity on it. If the platform runs the page, it is drawing on that trust without the charity's agreement.

Nonprofit 3rd-party platform check

  • Does the page say plainly who operates it?
  • Would a first-time visitor think the nonprofit made it?

Related: O. No implied connection

Open page 2 of the PDF · Link to this note · Topics: Brand

Regulator allegation Letter page 2

F A tip set by default

public reports indicate GoFundMe’s donation pages may have applied a default “tip” of approximately 16.5% intended to pay GoFundMe directly.

Multistate letter, 3 Mar 2026, page 2

In plain English our summary

Public reports, the letter says, indicate the pages may have preset a “tip” of about 16.5% paid to GoFundMe. This is a reported allegation about the pages at the time, not a statement about today's tip rate.

Why it matters our view

A preset tip raises what the donor pays without raising what the charity receives. A donor who misses the default can pay more than intended.

Nonprofit 3rd-party platform check

  • Is a tip preselected at checkout, and at what rate?
  • Does the page say the tip goes to the platform, not the charity?

Related: P. Review whether tips belong to the charities · N. Tell donors who gets the money, who controls it, and what it costs

Open page 2 of the PDF · Link to this note · Topics: Money

Regulator allegation Letter page 2

G Ranking above the charity's own site

Those same public reports allege GoFundMe used search engine optimization (SEO) that caused its donation pages to appear above official fundraising campaigns maintained by the charities themselves. If true, the SEO may have diverted prospective donors from giving directly to the charities, or worse, the public in need of charitable services, looking for the charities’ official websites.

Multistate letter, 3 Mar 2026, page 2

In plain English our summary

Public reports allege the pages appeared in search results above the charities' own fundraising pages. If true, the letter says, this may have drawn donors away from giving directly, and drawn people looking for help away from the charities' websites.

Why it matters our view

Search is how many donors and people in need find a nonprofit. A platform page above the official site can capture both the gift and the visit. The letter does not say that ranking above a charity is unlawful on its own.

Nonprofit 3rd-party platform check

  • Search your organization's name: what ranks above your own site?
  • Do AI assistants send donors to a platform page instead of to you?

Related: M. Stop outranking the charity

Open page 2 of the PDF · Link to this note · Topics: Search

Source citation Letter page 2

H The reporting the letter cites

George Weiner, 1.4 Million Donation Pages without Permission created by GoFundMe, Nonprofit NewsFeed

Multistate letter, 3 Mar 2026, page 2

In plain English our summary

Footnote 1 lists the public reports the coalition relied on: two ABC7 News stories, the National Catholic Reporter, a Whiteford law-firm client alert, and a Nonprofit NewsFeed article by George Weiner of Whole Whale, which publishes this site.

Why it matters our view

The letter's facts come from public reporting, and it says so. A citation is not an endorsement: the regulators do not endorse this site, Whole Whale or any report's conclusions.

Nonprofit 3rd-party platform check

  • Which reported facts did the letter adopt, and which did it qualify with “may” or “if true”?

Related: A. Pages made without asking · J. Concerns, not conclusions

Open page 2 of the PDF · Link to this note · Topics: Accountability

Regulator allegation Letter page 3

I The donor loses say over the gift

Failure to clearly and conspicuously disclose material information—such as the identity of the entity actually receiving donations, the use of a DAF intermediary, that donors can no longer direct the donation, and that charities may not be sent donations promptly, if at all—presents compliance issues under various state laws.

Multistate letter, 3 Mar 2026, page 3

In plain English our summary

Among the things the letter says must be clearly disclosed: who actually receives the donation, that a DAF intermediary is involved, that the donor can no longer direct the gift, and that the charity may not be paid promptly, if at all. Failing to say so, it says, presents compliance issues under various state laws.

Why it matters our view

A donor who picks a charity expects the money to follow that choice. Once a fund holds the gift, the fund decides, which matters most when the charity never signs up to be paid.

Nonprofit 3rd-party platform check

  • Does the page say the fund may send the gift elsewhere if the charity cannot be paid?
  • Does it say how long payment to the charity can take?

Related: D. The gift went to a fund, not the charity · N. Tell donors who gets the money, who controls it, and what it costs

Open page 3 of the PDF · Link to this note · Topics: Money

Legal qualification Letter page 3

J Concerns, not conclusions

These considerations are neither exhaustive nor determinative.

Multistate letter, 3 Mar 2026, page 3

In plain English our summary

The coalition says its list of possible legal problems is neither complete nor final. The letter names practices that could violate state law; it does not decide that any law was broken.

Why it matters our view

This sentence sets the weight of everything above it. The letter is a public demand, not a court judgment or a settlement, and should be cited that way.

Nonprofit 3rd-party platform check

  • Has any state since sued or settled? Check the event log.
  • Which of the cited statutes apply in your state?

Related: A. Pages made without asking · I. The donor loses say over the gift

Open page 3 of the PDF · Link to this note · Topics: Accountability

Regulator demand Letter page 4 · Demand 2 of 6

L The nonprofit should not have to do the cleanup

Demonstrate the takedown procedures implemented to remove unauthorized donation pages without action by the charity.

Multistate letter, 3 Mar 2026, page 4

In plain English our summary

The coalition wants GoFundMe to show how unauthorized donation pages are removed without requiring the nonprofit to take action.

Why it matters our view

This demand follows from the first. It shows the AGs wanted GoFundMe to act immediately, not delay by requiring charities to opt out themselves.

Nonprofit 3rd-party platform check

  • Must the nonprofit register, claim a page, or accept terms to obtain removal?
  • What evidence shows the platform proactively removed unauthorized pages?

Platform statement GoFundMe,

GoFundMe answers that no takedown procedure is needed from charities because the unclaimed pages had already been removed. For pages found later, the response (section 1, page 3) says only that GoFundMe “will promptly investigate and remediate as appropriate.”

Read it in the response, page 4

Related: K. Prove the pages are gone, and that consent comes first

Open page 4 of the PDF · Link to this note · Topics: Removal

Regulator demand Letter page 4 · Demand 3 of 6

M Stop outranking the charity

Explain how GoFundMe has modified its SEO practices to ensure charities’ own fundraising campaigns or websites are not disadvantaged.

Multistate letter, 3 Mar 2026, page 4

In plain English our summary

The coalition asks GoFundMe to explain how it changed its search practices so that charities' own campaigns and websites are not put at a disadvantage.

Why it matters our view

The AGs want GoFundMe to show it is not competing in search engines with nonprofits’ own brands. While not explicit, the demand appears to suggest GoFundMe deindex unclaimed pages. A site as large as GoFundMe can push small nonprofits down in search results, which may have contributed to genuine donor confusion.

Nonprofit 3rd-party platform check

  • Do platform pages for your organization still appear in Google or Bing?
  • Does the platform block indexing of pages a nonprofit has not claimed?

Platform statement GoFundMe,

GoFundMe says it blocked search indexing of nonprofit pages in October 2025, that the block still applied to claimed, active pages as of its March 13, 2026 letter, and that unclaimed pages no longer existed to be indexed.

Read it in the response, page 4

Related: G. Ranking above the charity's own site

Open page 4 of the PDF · Link to this note · Topics: Search

Regulator demand Letter page 4 · Demand 4 of 6

N Tell donors who gets the money, who controls it, and what it costs

Prominently disclose all material information that would reasonably affect a person’s decision to donate, including: the legal recipient of the donation; the role and nature of any DAF sponsor; and any fees, tips, or other amounts added to or deducted from donor contributions.

Multistate letter, 3 Mar 2026, page 4

In plain English our summary

The coalition asks GoFundMe to prominently disclose anything that would reasonably affect a decision to give, naming three things: the legal recipient of the donation, the role and nature of any DAF sponsor, and any fees, tips or other amounts added to or taken from the gift.

Why it matters our view

The AGs want prominent disclosure of who gets donor money, how it gets there, and how much arrives. In our opinion, many donation platforms fail to do this adequately. As routing money through DAFs gets more complicated, donors deserve to know at checkout whether their donation is going through a DAF, and what happens if that money cannot reach the nonprofit.

Nonprofit 3rd-party platform check

  • Before paying, can a donor see the legal recipient by name?
  • Is the intermediary fund's role explained, not just named?
  • Are fees and tips shown as separate amounts?

Platform statement GoFundMe,

GoFundMe says its pages and checkout disclose the legal recipient, the role of any intermediary such as PayPal Giving Fund, and fees and tips, illustrated with pages for fictional nonprofits. It describes a 2.2% + $0.30 transaction fee and an optional tip that donors can set to 0%.

Read it in the response, page 4

Related: D. The gift went to a fund, not the charity · I. The donor loses say over the gift · F. A tip set by default

Open page 4 of the PDF · Link to this note · Topics: Money

Regulator demand Letter page 4 · Demand 5 of 6

O No implied connection

Ensure any fundraising or donation web page, campaign, or solicitation does not imply that GoFundMe is the intended charity, is operating on behalf of the charity, or has any affiliation if one does not exist.

Multistate letter, 3 Mar 2026, page 4

In plain English our summary

The coalition asks GoFundMe to make sure no page, campaign or solicitation suggests that GoFundMe is the charity, acts on the charity's behalf, or is affiliated with it when it is not.

Why it matters our view

Here the AGs address the affiliation concern from page 2. Beyond GoFundMe, platforms that make it hard for donors to tell whether a page was authorized can undermine a nonprofit’s ability to manage its own image and brand.

Nonprofit 3rd-party platform check

  • Would a donor think the charity made this page?
  • Does a badge or label suggest the charity approved a page it never authorized?

Platform statement GoFundMe,

GoFundMe points to its terms, which say it is not a charity and does not solicit donations for itself or anyone else. It says it knows of no current page implying otherwise and will keep reviewing its product language.

Read it in the response, page 7

Related: E. It looked like the charity's own page

Open page 4 of the PDF · Link to this note · Topics: Brand

Regulator demand Letter page 4 · Demand 6 of 6

P Review whether tips belong to the charities

Review whether “tips” or analogous charges collected by GoFundMe should be redirected to the charities.

Multistate letter, 3 Mar 2026, page 4

In plain English our summary

The coalition asks GoFundMe to review whether tips or similar charges it collected should be redirected to the charities. It asks for a review; it does not order repayment.

Why it matters our view

Here the AGs address confusion about where “tips” go. In our opinion, platforms do tend to make clear that the tip goes to the platform itself. That says nothing about the donor-trust problem created by pages with tips of 16% or more preselected.

Nonprofit 3rd-party platform check

  • Did donors to your organization pay tips on a page you did not authorize?
  • Has the platform said what its review concluded?

Platform statement GoFundMe,

GoFundMe says tips are optional, labeled as going to GoFundMe, and can be set to 0%, and it declines to redirect them to charities. No ruling on repayment exists in either document.

Read it in the response, page 8

Related: F. A tip set by default

Open page 4 of the PDF · Link to this note · Topics: Money

Text view

The full letter, page by page, as written. Marked passages link to their notes. Extraction artifacts were corrected against the PDF; the wording is unchanged.

Page 1 PDF

March 3, 2026

VIA U.S. MAIL AND E-MAIL

Kim Wilford
General Counsel
GoFundMe
8605 Santa Monica Blvd. #17221
West Hollywood, CA 90069-4109

Dear Ms. Wilford:

The undersigned state Attorneys General and charitable regulators (collectively, the “States”) are issuing this public letter to express our grave concerns about GoFundMe’s creation of donation web pages for more than 1.4 million charities without their prior knowledge or consentA, prompting an outcry from charities nationwide whose identities were plagiarized. Although the States understand GoFundMe may have subsequently removed the unauthorized donation web pages and is now obtaining prior consent from impacted charities, we seek immediate verification of the steps GoFundMe has taken and demand more be done to protect the interests of charities and donors.

GoFundMe Creates Unauthorized Charity Donation Web Pages

As has been publicly reported, in October of 2025, GoFundMe created its own donation web pages for 1.4 million charities located in the United States, without first asking those charities for permission. Based on public reports, we understand that GoFundMe generated these pages without the prior knowledge or consent of the referenced charities, and these charities, upon discovering the GoFundMe pages, were deeply troubled that the pages were set up in their names without their knowledge.1 The charities whose identities were taken by GoFundMe were

[1] See, e.g., Stephanie Sierra, GoFundMe created 1.4M donation pages for nonprofits; some Bay Area organizations had no clue, ABC7News, https://abc7news.com/post/gofundme-created-14-million-donation-pages-nonprofits-bay-area-organizations-had-no-clue/18013410/; Gina Christian, San Antonio Archdiocese pushes back at unapproved GoFundMe donation pages, National Catholic Reporter, https://www.ncronline.org/news/san-antonio-archdiocese-pushes-back-unapproved-gofundme-donation-pages; Stephanie Sierra, GoFundMe takes responsibility for creating pages without nonprofits’ consent: ‘We’re very sorry,’ ABC7News, https://abc7news.com/post/gofundme-apologizes-creating-donation-

Page 2 PDF

unable to control their fundraising and brand. The unauthorized pages also created donor confusion, deception, distrust, and conflicting messaging.B Additionally, GoFundMe’s creation of these websites led to the following:

Inaccurate Charity Information: Public reports indicate inaccurate names, logos, social media sites, and charitable purposes of many charities were displayed on the pages created by GoFundMeC, which demonstrates how imperative it is to obtain prior consent for fundraising using a charity’s information.

Disclosure about Donor-Advised Fund (DAF) Structure: In some instances, the pages did not clearly disclose that contributions were made to a DAF sponsor rather than the featured charity, explain the nature of a DAF vehicle or its implications for donor intent and fund distributionD, and thereby risked deceiving and confusing the public.

Impression of Charity Affiliation: According to public reports, the overall page presentations likely gave donors the impression that the pages were operated by, or directly affiliated with, the named charities—when instead, they were actually operated by GoFundMe.E

Default Tip and Search Engine Optimization: In addition, public reports indicate GoFundMe’s donation pages may have applied a default “tip” of approximately 16.5% intended to pay GoFundMe directly.F Those same public reports allege GoFundMe used search engine optimization (SEO) that caused its donation pages to appear above official fundraising campaigns maintained by the charities themselves. If true, the SEO may have diverted prospective donors from giving directly to the charities, or worse, the public in need of charitable services, looking for the charities’ official websites.G

Potential Violations Under State Law

These practices could violate numerous state charitable solicitation and consumer protection laws, including but not limited to:

Lack of Required Consent:2 Many states require written consent from a charity before a third party may solicit funds using that charity’s name, intellectual property, or likeness.

pages-nonprofits-consent-vows-make-changes/18082313; George Weiner, 1.4 Million Donation Pages without Permission created by GoFundMe, Nonprofit NewsFeedH, https://nonprofitnewsfeed.com/news/1-4-million-donation-pages-without-permission-created-by-gofundme/; Heidi K. Abegg, Client Alert: With Giving Tuesday Approaching, What Nonprofits Need to Know About GoFundMe’s creation of Over A Million Unauthorized Nonprofit Donation Pages, Whiteford, https://www.whitefordlaw.com/news-events/client-alert-with-giving-tuesday-approaching-what-nonprofits-need-to-know-about-gofundmes-creation-of-over-a-million-unauthorized-nonprofit-donation-pages.

[2] See, e.g., Ala. Code § 13A-9-71(l) (2024); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 44-6561(A)(1) (2025); Ark. Code Ann. § 4-28-412(5) (2025); Cal. Gov’t Code § 12599.6(f)(5), (11) (West 2024); Cal. Gov’t Code § 12599.9(f) (West 2025); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 (West 1993); Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 21a-190h(7) (West 2005); D.C. Code § 44-1711(a) (Lexis June 2018 Supp.); Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, § 2595(b)(9) (2025); Fla. Stat. § 496.415(4) (2025); Ga. Code Ann. § 43-17-12(c)(1) (West 2008); Haw.

Page 3 PDF

Deceptive or Misleading Conduct:3 Presenting a web page in a manner that may lead donors to believe it is operated by, or directly connected to, a charity likely violates various state statutes that prohibit deceptive advertising or solicitation practices.

Insufficient or Omitted Disclosures:4 Failure to clearly and conspicuously disclose material information—such as the identity of the entity actually receiving donations, the use of a DAF intermediary, that donors can no longer direct the donation, and that charities may not be sent donations promptly, if at all—presents compliance issues under various state laws.I

These considerations are neither exhaustive nor determinative.J

Rev. Stat. Ann. § 467B-9(a) (West 2013); Iowa Code § 13C.3 (2021); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 17-1769(d) (2024); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 367.667(1)(a) (West 2019); Md. Code Ann., Bus. Reg. § 6-609(a) (LexisNexis 2024); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 68, § 28(d) (2025); Mich. Comp. Laws § 400.288(1) (2011); Minn. Stat. § 309.55, subdiv. 1 (2025); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 131F-20(6) (2012), §§ 75-1.1 et seq.; N.H. RSA 7:28-f, I (c), (f) (Lexis 2020); N.Y. Exec. Law § 174-d(1) (McKinney 2019); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1716.14(A)(3) (West 2025); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 18, § 552.14a(A)(5) (West 2011); Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 128.856 (West 2025); 10 Pa. Stat. §162.15 (West 1992); S.C. Code Ann. § 33-56-120(D) (2014); Tenn. Code Ann. § 48-101-513(f) (West 2025); Utah Code Ann. § 13-22-17 (West); Va. Code Ann. § 57-57(E) (2003); Wash. Rev. Code § 19.09.230 (2011); Wis. Stat. § 202.16(1)(b) (2015).

[3] See, e.g., Ala. Code § 13A-9-71(o) (2024); Alaska Stat. § 45.68.050(3) (2024); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 44-6561(A)(2) (2025); Ark. Code Ann. § 4-28-412(6) (2025); Cal. Gov’t Code § 12599.6(f)(2), (3) (West 2024); Cal. Gov’t Code § 12599.9(e) (West 2025); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 (West 1993); Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 21a-190h(8) (West 2005); D.C. Code § 44-1711(b) (Lexis June 2018 Supp.); Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, § 2595(b)(10) (2025); Fla. Stat. § 496.415(5) (2025); Ga. Code Ann. § 43-17-12(c)(2) (West 2008); Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 467B-9(b) (West 2013); 225 Ill. Comp. Stat. 460/11(d) (2024); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 17-1769(e) (2024); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 367.667(1)(b) (West 2019); Md. Code Ann., Bus. Reg. § 6-608 (LexisNexis 2024); Mich. Comp. Laws § 400.288(1) (2011); Minn. Stat. § 309.55, subdiv. 2 (2025); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 131F-20(7) (2012), §§ 75-1.1 et seq.; N.H. RSA 7:28-I(b) (Lexis 2020); N.J. Rev. Stat. § 45:17A-32(c)(4) (2005); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-22-6.3(A)(2) (West 2025); N.Y. Exec. Law § 174 (McKinney 2019); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1716.14(A)(4) (West 2025); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 18, § 552.14a(A)(5) (West 2011); Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 646.608 (West 2025); 10 Pa. Stat. §162.15 (West 1992); 5 R.I. Gen. Laws § 5-53.1-7(11) (2025); Utah Code Ann. § 13-22-13; § 13-11-4 (West); Wash. Rev. Code § 19.09.100(15) (2011); Wis. Stat. § 202.16(1)(c) (2015).

[4] See, e.g., Ala. Code § 13A-9-71(a) (2024); Ark. Code Ann. § 4-28-402(b)(3) (2025); Cal. Gov’t Code § 12599.6(f)(2), (3) (West 2024); Cal. Gov’t Code § 12599.9(e) (West 2025); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 (West 1993); Fla. Stat. § 496.405(2)(b) (2025); Ga. Code Ann. § 43-17-8(a)(3)(A) (West 2010); 225 Ill. Comp. Stat. 460/2 (2024); La. Stat. Ann. § 51:1904.1 (2024); Md. Code Ann., Bus. Reg. § 6-608 (LexisNexis 2024); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 68, § 23(1) (2025); Mich. Comp. Laws § 400.288(1) (2011); Minn. Stat. § 309.556, subdiv. 1 (2025); Miss. Code Ann. § 79-11-503(1) (West 2016); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 131F-9(b) (2012), §§ 75-1.1 et seq.; Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 18, § 552.14a (West); Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 646.608 (West 2025); 10 Pa. Stat. §162.15 (West 1992); 5 R.I. Gen. Laws § 5-53.1-12(a) (2025); Utah Code Ann. § 13-22-13; § 13-11-4 (West); Wash. Rev. Code § 19.09.100(1), (4), & (15) (2011); Wis. Stat. § 202.12(6m) (2015).

Page 4 PDF

Demand for Corrective Action

In light of the above, the States demand that GoFundMe immediately confirm that the following remedial measures have been taken:

1. Provide proof that GoFundMe has removed all unauthorized donation web pages and is requiring prior consent for charity donation web pages.K

2. Demonstrate the takedown procedures implemented to remove unauthorized donation pages without action by the charity.L

3. Explain how GoFundMe has modified its SEO practices to ensure charities’ own fundraising campaigns or websites are not disadvantaged.M

The States further demand that GoFundMe undertake a comprehensive review of relevant policies and procedures, and implement the following additional remedial measures immediately:

1. Prominently disclose all material information that would reasonably affect a person’s decision to donate, including:N

the legal recipient of the donation;N

the role and nature of any DAF sponsor; andN

any fees, tips, or other amounts added to or deducted from donor contributions.N

2. Ensure any fundraising or donation web page, campaign, or solicitation does not imply that GoFundMe is the intended charity, is operating on behalf of the charity, or has any affiliation if one does not exist.O

3. Review whether “tips” or analogous charges collected by GoFundMe should be redirected to the charities.P

As States charged with protecting charitable assets, ensuring truthful solicitation of charitable donations, and overseeing entities that engage in charitable fundraising, we appreciate your attention to these important issues. Please contact California Deputy Attorney General Stephen Abanise at Stephen.Abanise@doj.ca.gov with your response no later than 14 days from the date of this letter. Investigative requests from interested States are also forthcoming.

Page 5 PDF

Sincerely,

ROB BONTA
California Attorney General

KATHLEEN JENNINGS
Delaware Attorney General

KWAME RAOUL
Illinois Attorney General

RUSSELL COLEMAN
Kentucky Attorney General
By: CHRIS LEWIS
Division Chief
Kentucky Office of the Attorney General

ANTHONY G. BROWN
Maryland Attorney General

SUSAN C. LEE
Maryland Secretary of State

ANDREA JOY CAMPBELL
Massachusetts Attorney General

DANA NESSEL
Michigan Attorney General

KEITH ELLISON
Minnesota Attorney General

JOHN M. FORMELLA
New Hampshire Attorney General

Page 6 PDF

JENNIFER DAVENPORT
New Jersey Attorney General

RAUL TORREZ
New Mexico Attorney General

LETITIA JAMES
New York Attorney General
By: EMILY STERN
Enforcement Section Chief
Charities Bureau
New York Office of the Attorney General

JEFF JACKSON
North Carolina Attorney General

GENTNER DRUMMOND
Oklahoma Attorney General
By: MALISA MCPHERSON
Deputy Attorney General
Oklahoma Office of the Attorney General

DAN RAYFIELD
Oregon Attorney General

DAVID W. SUNDAY, JR.
Pennsylvania Attorney General
By: SEAN A. KIRKPATRICK
Executive Deputy Attorney General
Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General

AL SCHMIDT
Secretary of the Commonwealth
Pennsylvania Department of State

MARK HAMMOND
South Carolina Secretary of State

TRE HARGETT
Tennessee Secretary of State

Page 7 PDF

/s/
CHARITY R. CLARK
Vermont Attorney General
By: ROSEMARY M. KENNEDY
Assistant Attorney General
Vermont Office of the Attorney General

NICK BROWN
Washington Attorney General

JOSHUA L. KAUL
Wisconsin Attorney General

Documents and method

Both documents are served from this site, byte for byte as received, so a citation here stays stable.

Public demand letter
Multistate letter to GoFundMe (3 Mar 2026, 7 pages). Official copy.
SHA-256 bed2bc8c71aa05c8bd1775adc729bc582ea0445c136da4b49f2c1b12339e7f0d · The copy linked on the New York Attorney General's site is a different file (its bytes differ) of the same letter.
Platform statement
GoFundMe's response to the multistate letter (13 Mar 2026, 9 pages). Official copy.
SHA-256 cb8dd09c5cb526ba6eed115ce251eb4fb38dc38988ccc843399868259820e8f4
Reviewed
Notes and quotes checked against both PDFs on .
  • The letter is a public letter. It is not law, a lawsuit, a court finding or a settlement.
  • We are not lawyers and this is not legal advice. We do not allege any legal wrongdoing; we comment on fundraising ethics and practice.
  • Qualifiers stay in: “may”, “likely”, “if true”, “public reports indicate”. The 16.5% tip figure is a reported allegation about the pages at the time, not today’s rate.
  • The letter discusses donor-advised funds without naming one. GoFundMe’s reply names PayPal Giving Fund; that is GoFundMe’s statement.
  • Footnote 1 cites reporting by George Weiner of Whole Whale, which publishes this site. A citation is not an endorsement by any regulator.
  • This page is not an official government resource and is not endorsed by any attorney general.
  • Corrections: report@shadowdonation.org.

GoFundMe on the register In the event log The principles