Which alternative crowdfunding sites gained prominence after GoFundMe removals and what legal risks have they faced?
Executive summary
After high-profile removals from GoFundMe—most notably the Freedom Convoy and other campaigns criticized for promoting unlawful or harmful activity—several alternative platforms such as GiveSendGo, Indiegogo, CrowdJustice, Kickstarter and a raft of lesser-known “alternatives” saw increased attention from donors and campaigners seeking venues that either tolerate broader content or offer different fee models [1] [2] regulation">crowdfunding-sites" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">[3]. Those platforms, and the users who migrated to them, have confronted a mix of legal and regulatory risks ranging from fraud prosecution of individual fundraisers to calls for tighter platform regulation, tax and fiduciary questions about recipients, and reputational and removal pressures that mirror the very problems that drove donors away from GoFundMe [4] [5] [1] [6].
1. Which platforms rose when GoFundMe pulled campaigns — the visible alternatives
When GoFundMe took down controversial campaigns such as those tied to the Freedom Convoy and other disallowed causes, donors and organizers turned to platforms positioned as alternatives: GiveSendGo emerged in reporting as a destination for convoy fundraising after GoFundMe removals, mainstream reward- and donation-oriented sites like Indiegogo and Kickstarter were commonly listed as options, and specialized legal-fund platforms such as CrowdJustice were highlighted for litigation-related fundraising [1] [3] [2]. Industry roundups and platform-comparison lists published in the years since also added newer or niche services — from Givebutter and Spotfund to Patreon and SeedInvest — to the roster of alternatives users consider when GoFundMe declines or removes campaigns [3] [7].
2. The legal risks facing fundraisers and the platforms that host them
Fundraising online carries concrete legal risk: federal regulators have pursued people who raised money through crowdfunding and failed to deliver on promised products or uses of funds, a trend that extends beyond any one site and has prompted enforcement actions against fundraisers using Kickstarter, GoFundMe and similar services [4]. Courts and juries have also treated false or exaggerated campaign representations as actionable fraud—cases and indictments tied to false medical claims or misrepresented campaigns have resulted in criminal charges and civil judgments [8]. Academic and policy research stresses that crowdfunding platforms can be conduits for ideological or extremist causes and recommends stronger regulation because platform removals do not eliminate harms and can redistribute activity to less-regulated corners of the internet [1].
3. Platform liability, policy enforcement, and the limits of self-regulation
Platforms often assert content and terms-of-service authority to remove campaigns, but legal exposure is mostly concentrated on individual fundraisers and, increasingly, on platform governance as policymakers scrutinize how sites enable harm; scholarship calls for “digital constitutionalism” or regulatory frameworks to govern ideologically driven fundraising because ad hoc removal practices invite both backlash and migration [1]. Meanwhile, nonprofit and tax experts warn that receiving crowdsourced donations raises fiduciary, tax and asset-protection questions for recipients — funds may be taxable, subject to estate or bankruptcy claims, and campaign organizers may lack sophistication in handling large sums [5]. These are legal risks that follow donors and recipients regardless of which platform hosts the campaign.
4. Fraud, reputation, and enforcement: patterns that repeat across platforms
The same structural weaknesses that make GoFundMe vulnerable to scams and misinformation — limited pre-vetting, reliance on campaigner-provided narratives, and slow remedial processes — are present across many alternatives, and academic reviews catalog thousands of frauds tied to popular crowdfunding sites, suggesting migration to another platform does not eliminate the specter of deception [6] [1]. At the same time, regulators and news organizations have shown willingness to follow up: AP reporting documents federal efforts to pursue crowdfunding scams across platforms, signaling that migrating to a less scrupulous host does not immunize fundraisers from prosecution or civil exposure [4].
5. What reporting doesn’t (yet) show and why that matters
Available reporting documents prominent migrations to platforms like GiveSendGo and catalogs legal actions against individual scammers and calls for regulation, but public sources in this set do not comprehensively track litigation or regulatory outcomes specifically against each alternative platform itself, nor do they provide exhaustive data on how many campaigns simply relocated and continued without incident [1] [4] [2]. That evidentiary gap matters: observers can assert patterns of risk and regulatory attention, but cannot yet prove systematic platform-level legal liability beyond isolated enforcement of fundraisers or academic prescriptions for broader rules [5] [6].