Which verified court cases or public records list clients who hired paid protest companies?

1. What the public record actually shows: one civil suit and media claims, not a client registry

The clearest entry in the public record cited in available reporting is a federal lawsuit: Czech businessman Zdeněk Bakala filed suit alleging Crowds on Demand attempted to extort millions of dollars, a legal filing that connects the company to litigation but does not produce a public, verified list of past clients or buyers of protest services ^[1]. Separately, contemporaneous media accounts and later summaries allege political campaigns or figures used such services—for example, a New York Post claim that Anthony Weiner paid Crowds on Demand actors during a mayoral run—but that allegation appears in press reporting rather than as an itemized client list in a court record or government filing in the provided sources ^[1].

2. Why company statements and journalism are often the primary evidence, and their limits

Crowds on Demand is described in encyclopedic and news sources as a publicity firm that supplies actors for fans, paparazzi, security and organized protests, and the company’s founder and CEO have acknowledged the business model publicly, including a 2025 interview where the CEO said the firm works "with both sides of the aisle," which suggests bilateral political demand but does not substitute for legally verified client lists ^{[1] [2]}. Journalistic accounts and company statements can identify suspected clients or episodes, but such sources may rely on company marketing, anonymous contractors, or secondhand claims; none of the provided sources include a court judgment or government record that compiles clients by name ^{[1] [2]}.

3. Legal and governmental sources exist but were not shown to contain client rosters

Federal repositories and enforcement libraries—like the GAO’s bid protest pages and the FTC or SEC litigation libraries—are cited in the search results as places where one would expect formal records of legal disputes and enforcement actions, but the provided snippets do not show any GAO, FTC, SEC, or other official enforcement release that lists clients who hired paid protesters ^{[3] [4] [5] [6]}. The reporting supplied does not include a government subpoena, court exhibit, plea, or civil discovery document that names a roster of customers of private protest companies.

4. Competing narratives, implicit agendas, and why that matters for verification

Two narratives compete in the material: one frames paid-protest firms as marketing/publicity businesses that serve willing clients and occasionally face lawsuits (as with Bakala’s suit), while another—prominent in political discourse—uses the concept of "paid protesters" to discredit grassroots movements; the sources provided include both encyclopedic descriptions and political-media allegations, and each carries agendas that should caution readers about assuming completeness or veracity absent primary legal records ^{[1] [7] [2]}. The absence of a verified public roster in these sources could reflect legitimate confidentiality in client contracts, selective media focus, or simply that discovery in litigation has not produced or publicized such lists.

Conclusion: measured answer to the question

Based on the provided reporting, the only clearly verifiable court connection naming Crowds on Demand is the extortion lawsuit filed by Zdeněk Bakala, and media reports have alleged specific clients (e.g., Anthony Weiner) while company officials have acknowledged working across political lines, but there is no presented court decision or government public record in these sources that functions as a verified, itemized list of clients who hired paid protest companies ^{[1] [2]}. If such lists exist, they were not included in the supplied reporting; locating them would require subpoenas, docket-level discovery, or enforcement releases not shown here ^{[3] [4]}.