Has Crowds on Demand faced any legal or ethical controversies?
Executive summary
Crowds on Demand has been the subject of recurring ethical controversy and at least one high-profile legal accusation, largely centered on its business of hiring actors to simulate public support or opposition — a practice critics call “astroturfing” — and specific allegations that the company was used to stage protests, harass targets, or pressure institutions [1] [2] [3]. The firm and its founder have defended the company as a nonpartisan PR and event service and have denied involvement in unlawful activity while pointing to legitimate demand for marketing and advocacy services [1] [4].
1. The core controversy: paid crowds, perception manipulation, and astroturfing
At the heart of the debate is what Crowds on Demand does: recruit and deploy paid participants to act as supporters, protesters, or other crowd roles — a model that opponents say manipulates public perception and can manufacture the appearance of grassroots sentiment, often labeled “astroturfing” [5] [1]. InfluenceWatch summarizes this central critique by describing the company as widely accused of facilitating astroturfing and notes the firm’s own boast of serving as “the ultimate guerilla lobbying and government relations firm,” a framing that intensifies ethical concerns about transparency and democratic discourse [1].
2. Documented incidents that sparked scrutiny
Reporting has flagged several episodes that escalated public scrutiny: an Entergy subcontractor in New Orleans reportedly used Crowds on Demand to supply speakers and crowd support at a contentious power-plant hearing, prompting accusations the firm was deployed to bolster an unpopular corporate project [5] [1]. Separately, multiple outlets covered allegations that the company was hired in campaigns to harass or pressure individuals — notably the lawsuit and public complaints by financier Zdenek Bakala claiming Crowds on Demand was used to send protesters to his home and to organize calls and emails to institutions associated with him [2] [3].
3. Legal exposure: extortion allegation and lawsuits
Those harassment claims moved beyond ethical debate into legal territory when a lawsuit accused Crowds on Demand and associates of extortionate conduct tied to targeted protest campaigns, making the firm the defendant in litigation and sparking renewed attention from mainstream press [2] [3]. Coverage in the Los Angeles Times and regional outlets summarized Bakala’s allegations and the institution-level responses — for example, the Aspen Institute saying it had received messages from people “associated with Crowds on Demand” and that its counsel had spoken with founder Adam Swart [2].
4. Company responses and denials
Crowds on Demand and CEO Adam Swart have repeatedly characterized the firm as nonpartisan and said it turns down work that would be illegal or violent, at times publicly distancing the company from volatile protests and claiming it declined numerous controversial requests [1] [6] [7]. In the face of social-media accusations tying the firm to recent anti-ICE demonstrations, Swart told outlets the company had not sent activists to those protests because such activity could be illegal and unsafe [6] [8].
5. Ethical debate vs. proven illegality: where the record stands
The documented record shows sustained ethical controversy and at least one serious legal accusation, but many news summaries note a gap between moral outrage and clear patterns of criminal liability: several episodes cited by reporters amount to embarrassing or ethically fraught PR work rather than convictions for wrongdoing, and the company often asserts client confidentiality that limits public proof of who ordered specific campaigns [5] [1] [4]. InfluenceWatch and mainstream reports treat astroturfing accusations as credible and repeated, while also reporting Crowds on Demand’s refusal of certain protest jobs and its public defenses [1] [6].
6. Broader implications and competing interpretations
Critics frame the company as symptomatic of a privatized influence industry that erodes transparency in public debate, whereas defenders emphasize the legitimacy of paid event staffing and the company’s claim to decline illegal assignments — an ambiguity that leaves audiences balancing evidence of questionable campaigns and targeted legal claims against the company’s denials and commercial explanations [1] [4]. Public records indicate few transparent client disclosures, which keeps some allegations difficult to fully verify and fuels calls for stronger disclosure rules when hired crowds intersect with politics [5] [1].