What are common complaints about Mercor from users?

1. Headlines: Users Say Interviews Felt Like “Fake Jobs” and Time Sinks

Multiple user-facing review summaries report that people experienced what they described as fake or non-serious job postings and interview processes that consumed time without delivering legitimate opportunities; these reports allege staged interviews and unclear outcomes, generating frustration and suspicion about intent and transparency ^{[1] [2]}. Trustpilot-level criticism and replicated accounts on consumer sites emphasize that the core complaint is not merely a poor hiring experience but a substantive business-practice concern where participants feel they provided labor—often in interview tasks—without pay, clear feedback, or any subsequent job offer, framing the practice as exploitative rather than merely inefficient ^{[4] [6]}.

2. Money Matters: Complaints About Unpaid Work and Opaque Compensation

A recurring theme in the source analyses is allegations of non-payment for completed tasks or lack of compensation disclosure, which heightens the seriousness of the “fake interview” claims; users report completing work that appears directed toward training systems or fulfilling internal needs without remuneration, and then being left with no formal engagement or payment recourse ^{[1] [2]}. These financial complaints are often cited alongside low consumer ratings and are the primary driver of the Trustpilot score noted in the analysis, shifting the issue from an isolated HR error to a pattern with potential legal and ethical implications for how the company sources labor and credits contributors ^{[4] [2]}.

3. Process Problems: Communication, Organization, and Hiring Opacity

Beyond payment, multiple sources highlight poor communication, opaque hiring processes, scattered organizational practices, and confusion over contract terms or task expectations, which appear on both consumer complaint threads and employee-review platforms; applicants and some staff describe long waits, inconsistent instructions, and unclear contract duration, compounding distrust among candidates ^{[5] [1]}. Employee-side reviews occasionally contrast these criticisms by praising compensation and flexibility, indicating a divided picture where internal staff may see benefits that external applicants do not experience, suggesting that issues may be concentrated in candidate-facing recruitment and task-assignment workflows rather than universal operational failure ^{[5] [6]}.

4. Technology and Privacy: Bugs, Compatibility, and Tracking Concerns

Technical reports and independent reviews raise concerns about software bugs, browser compatibility, upload/login errors, and alleged invasive tracking or AI data collection, with dedicated bug-reporting pages documenting specific errors and third-party write-ups warning about data practices; users report difficulties uploading resumes, logging in with corporate emails, and encountering caching or permissions issues, while some reviewers question whether AI-driven interview sequences collect data in ways that were not fully disclosed ^{[3] [7]}. These technical and privacy issues intersect with the hiring complaints: if interviews are mediated by opaque AI systems or buggy platforms, candidate frustration escalates into broader privacy and ethical worries about consent and data use ^{[7] [3]}.

5. The Bigger Picture: Mixed Internal Reviews and the Need for Independent Verification

While consumer-facing feedback trends negative, employee-review platforms show a more mixed internal picture—some sources note good pay, flexibility, and management approval, with a majority recommending the employer to friends, indicating that current staff or contractors may have different experiences than external applicants ^{[5] [6]}. The contrast suggests plausible explanations: variability by role, evolving practices, or segmentation between recruitment operations and core company teams. The available analyses underscore the need for independent, dated verification—public company responses, regulatory filings, or investigative reporting—to confirm whether complaints represent systemic misconduct or localized process issues, a determination not possible from user reviews alone ^{[4] [8]}.

If you want, I can compile a dated timeline of specific complaint instances and link each to its original review text for deeper source-by-source verification.