Keep Factually independent

Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.

Loading...Time left: ...
Loading...Goal: $500
$

Fact check: Has Crowds on Demand been involved in any high-profile protests or events in 2024?

Checked on October 22, 2025

Executive Summary

Crowds on Demand has been publicly associated with supplying paid actors for rallies, protests, and advocacy campaigns, and multiple briefings in 2024 indicate the firm received and declined more than 100 requests to participate in anti-Israel demonstrations while remaining implicated in controversies about astroturfing and staged events [1] [2] [3]. Public accounts from 2024 and later reporting through 2025 describe a surge in demand for paid crowd services and note the company’s selective refusal to engage on particularly contentious issues, underscoring both continuity in controversy and a stated operational limit on certain protests [1] [4].

1. Why Crowds on Demand keeps surfacing in headlines — history meets business model

Crowds on Demand is repeatedly described as a publicity and marketing firm that sells the appearance of support by supplying actors as fans, paparazzi, security, or protesters, a business model that naturally draws scrutiny and media attention [5] [6]. The company’s origin story and evolution, including being founded by Adam Swart, a former journalist, explains its mix of PR techniques and political work; critics interpret the firm's services as astroturfing, a practice that substitutes paid choreography for organic grassroots action [5] [3]. This mix of commercial demand and political consequence sets the stage for the 2024 controversy about requests tied to Israel-related demonstrations [1].

2. The 2024 spike in requests and the company’s stated refusals — internal limits on engagement

Multiple reports from 2024 describe Crowds on Demand receiving over 100 lucrative requests to participate in anti-Israel demonstrations and other contentious protests, which the company’s leadership says it largely declined because the topics were too inflamed or not aligned with constructive engagement [1] [2]. The company’s CEO framed these refusals as a boundary intended to avoid exacerbating harm or working for foreign governments that might damage U.S. interests, a public posture that signals selective gatekeeping even as demand surged [1]. These assertions indicate the firm was targeted for recruitment into high-profile controversies yet sought to distance itself publicly from direct involvement.

3. What counts as “involvement” — supply, coordination, or declination?

Analyses differ on whether Crowds on Demand was actually involved in high-profile 2024 events versus being sought to participate en masse; some coverage emphasizes the company’s role in past high-profile events and its continued availability to clients, while 2024-specific accounts stress that it turned down many anti-Israel protest requests [5] [1] [6]. This distinction matters: providing services at an event is materially different from being solicited or accused of organizing covert astroturf campaigns. Public statements point to refusals as a major theme in 2024, meaning that while demand existed, documented operational participation that year is contested [1] [2].

4. Diverse framings in the media — business, ethics, and politics

Coverage frames Crowds on Demand through commercial, ethical, and political lenses: business reports emphasize a market spike and operational capacity, while critical outlets highlight astroturfing and past controversies including lawsuits and extortion allegations [4] [5] [3]. Each framing serves different agendas — business reporters may stress growth and market dynamics, and critics emphasize democratic implications of paid public displays. The 2024 narrative about turning down anti-Israel engagement appears in both defensive company statements and investigative summaries, illustrating competing narratives about culpability and restraint [1] [4].

5. Evidence gaps and what reporters acknowledge they cannot prove

The existing briefings and summaries supplied here show claims without uniformly detailed public documentation about specific events the firm participated in during 2024; sources alternately list historical involvement in high-profile events or highlight refusal of many 2024 requests [5] [1] [6]. That leaves open whether Crowds on Demand physically staffed any particular high-profile protests in 2024, as opposed to being solicited or previously implicated in other years. The difference between documented past deployments and reported 2024 solicitation is central to assessing the company’s direct role that year [5] [1].

6. What this means for readers assessing claims about “paid protesters”

Taken together, the material shows a consistent pattern: Crowds on Demand operates in a contested market and was a focal point of increased request activity in 2024, including many high-profile solicitations tied to Israel-related protests that the company publicly says it declined [2] [1]. For journalists and citizens, the salient fact is that demand for paid crowd services surged and generated controversy, but the public record in 2024—based on these summaries—supports that the company more often refused to participate in the most contentious protests rather than being a documented on-the-ground instigator that year [1] [4].

Want to dive deeper?
What is Crowds on Demand's business model for protest staffing?
How does Crowds on Demand recruit and pay protesters?
Has Crowds on Demand been involved in any notable 2024 election-related events?
What are the criticisms of Crowds on Demand's role in shaping public opinion?
Can Crowds on Demand's services be considered a form of astroturfing?