What is GoFundMe’s official policy on fundraising for legal defense and how has it been applied historically?
Executive summary
GoFundMe’s explicit public policy bars fundraisers "for the legal defense of an alleged violent crime," a rule the company has repeatedly invoked to remove campaigns and refund donors; the platform also says a post‑acquittal fundraiser could be permitted if it complies with other terms (GoFundMe statement clarifying actions taken around Kyle Rittenhouse) [1] [2]. Historically the rule has been applied unevenly and selectively — GoFundMe points to numerous removals across years, while critics point to instances where similar campaigns were left live, prompting accusations of inconsistency and implicit bias in enforcement [3] [4].
1. What the written policy is and where it’s stated
GoFundMe’s publicly stated terms and blog posts make clear that campaigns intended to pay for the legal defense of someone charged with a violent crime violate the platform’s Terms of Service and may be removed; the company’s legal pages and policy materials outline its broader terms and law‑enforcement cooperation practices but the short, explicit prohibition on criminal‑defense fundraising for violent crimes is most visible in GoFundMe’s own explanatory post and repeated company statements [1] [5] [6].
2. How the rule has been applied in notable cases
The platform removed fundraising pages for police charged in Freddie Gray’s death and for other officers after 2015, and says it pulled hundreds of fundraisers in 2020 tied to alleged violent crimes — including pages linked to Kyle Rittenhouse early in that case — as part of regular monitoring [3] [1]. More recently, GoFundMe removed multiple fundraisers supporting accused killers in separate 2024–2025 incidents (including campaigns tied to the accused shooter in the Brian Thompson case and several fundraisers for Rodney Hinton Jr. after a deputy’s killing), and the company says refunds were processed for donors when pages were removed [7] [8] [9].
3. Clarifications, exceptions and the post‑acquittal wrinkle
GoFundMe’s 2021 clarification after the Rittenhouse verdict spelled out an important exception: if an accused person is acquitted, a later fundraiser to cover legal costs or living expenses “would not violate this policy” so long as it doesn’t breach other terms and the beneficiary and purpose are properly identified [1] [2]. That carve‑out acknowledges the line between supporting someone ultimately cleared of charges and materially aiding someone actively facing allegations of violent crime, but it also creates grey areas around timing, burden of proof and burden of the platform to verify claims.
4. Controversy, selective enforcement allegations and brand risk
Reporting by Wired and others documents high‑profile examples where observers say GoFundMe applied its policy inconsistently — for instance, leaving online a legal‑defense fundraiser tied to an ICE agent accused in a fatal shooting even as it had removed similar police‑defense pages in earlier cases — fueling accusations that enforcement can appear selective or influenced by public pressure and media attention [4]. GoFundMe has defended removals as part of Trust & Safety monitoring and has noted cooperation mechanisms with law enforcement and legal requests, which critics interpret as both a compliance necessity and a potential vector for unequal outcomes [1] [6].
5. What enforcement looks like in practice and limits of available reporting
In practice enforcement has meant takedowns, donor refunds and public explanations in blog posts or press statements; GoFundMe also says it reserves the right to share deleted campaign content with law enforcement where appropriate [1] [3] [6]. The available reporting documents multiple removals across years and the company’s stated policies, but public sources do not provide a comprehensive audit trail showing every enforcement decision, internal triage criteria, or the precise thresholds used by Trust & Safety teams — therefore assessments of "consistency" rely on documented high‑profile cases rather than full internal data, and assertions about motive or bias remain contested between the company and critics [4] [3].