Fact check: How does Crowds on Demand ensure the safety of their protesters during events?

1. Summary of the results

The analyses reveal a significant gap in publicly available information regarding Crowds on Demand's specific safety protocols for their protesters. While multiple sources reference the company and its CEO Adam Swart, none directly address the safety measures implemented during events ^{[1] [2]}.

The most relevant information comes from Crowds on Demand's own comprehensive safety guide, which outlines general protest safety principles including understanding risks, preparing for safety, staying calm, sticking together, and being prepared for first aid ^[3]. However, this appears to be generic guidance rather than company-specific protocols for their paid participants.

Recent reporting indicates that requests for Crowds on Demand's services in Washington, D.C. have surged 400% following President Trump's move to federalize the police force ^[1], suggesting increased demand for their services during potentially volatile political situations.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal several critical gaps in understanding Crowds on Demand's operations:

• No specific safety protocols are disclosed for how the company protects participants during potentially dangerous situations
• No information about insurance coverage or liability protection for paid protesters
• No details about screening processes for events that might pose safety risks
• No discussion of coordination with law enforcement or event security

The company would benefit from maintaining operational secrecy around their safety measures, as transparency might compromise their business model or expose participants to targeting. Conversely, advocacy groups and political organizations hiring their services would benefit from assurances that participants are protected, as injuries or incidents could create legal and public relations problems.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question assumes that Crowds on Demand has established safety protocols for their protesters, but the analyses suggest this assumption may be unfounded ^{[3] [1] [4] [2]}. The question presupposes the existence of safety measures without evidence that such measures exist or are publicly documented.

Additionally, the framing implies that Crowds on Demand operates transparently about their safety practices, when the available evidence suggests the company maintains significant operational opacity. The only safety-related content found was generic protest safety advice rather than company-specific protocols ^[3].

The question may inadvertently legitimize the company's practices by assuming they have robust safety measures, when the reality appears to be that their safety protocols, if they exist, are not publicly disclosed or verified.