Does the organization, Crowds on Demand pay people to protest

1. What independent reporting documents

Major outlets and public records have described Crowds on Demand as a company that hires people to appear at protests and other public events: a Los Angeles Times investigation explicitly reported that Crowds on Demand “hires paid protesters” and covered a 2018 lawsuit alleging the firm staged protest activity as part of an extortion scheme ^[3], and InfluenceWatch’s profile summarizes the company’s history of being accused of facilitating astroturf campaigns and hiring protesters ^[4]. Wikipedia’s overview likewise notes public claims that the company provides “paid protesters” and lists multiple incidents and media stories documenting those allegations ^{[5] [8]}.

2. What the company’s own materials and clients say

Crowds on Demand’s official website advertises services to “set‑up protests, rallies, demonstrations” and describes concrete examples in which the company deployed protesters and phone‑banking operations to pressure clients and opponents—language that reads as an explicit offer to supply paid participants for advocacy campaigns ^{[1] [2]}. Those case studies on the firm’s site are presented as accomplishments of the service it sells ^[2].

3. What the CEO has publicly acknowledged about payment and scope

Adam Swart, the company’s founder and CEO, has publicly described the model on national media, saying the firm fields requests for paid protesters and noting compensation is typically “in the low hundreds of dollars,” framing organized protests as an advertising purchase ^{[7] [9]}. In later interviews he defended the industry, reporting surges in demand and arguing that many protests have genuine supporters even when professionals are hired to amplify an event ^[6].

4. Notable controversies, allegations and litigation

The company’s role in paid‑protester controversies has attracted political and legal scrutiny: reporters and social media users have accused Crowds on Demand of supplying actors to bolster demonstrations such as anti‑ICE protests and nationwide marches ^[10], and a high‑profile 2018 Los Angeles Times story detailed a lawsuit in which a wealthy investor alleged Crowds on Demand was employed as part of an extortion campaign to organize protests and contact institutions on his reputation ^{[3] [4]}. Those incidents illustrate both allegation and litigation, not automatic proof of every contested claim tied to the firm ^{[3] [4]}.

5. How to reconcile company claims with criticism

The company positions itself as non‑partisan and refuses to publicly name most clients for business reasons while simultaneously marketing protest and advocacy services on its site ^{[1] [2]}, and the CEO has argued that hired participants do not negate the existence of organic protesters ^[6]. Critics warn that hiring participants to create the impression of grassroots support—“astroturfing”—is ethically problematic and can mislead observers ^{[3] [4] [8]}. Public reporting documents both the commercial practice and the dispute over its legitimacy ^{[3] [4] [8]}.

6. Bottom line and limits of the public record

On the central question—does Crowds on Demand pay people to protest—the available reporting and the company’s own advertising and statements answer affirmatively: the firm offers and has executed paid‑participant protest and rally services, and its CEO has acknowledged payment levels and demand for such work ^{[1] [2] [7]}. That said, not every allegation tied to specific contemporary protests can be confirmed by the sources cited here, and some claims circulating on social media accusing the company of supplying actors for particular demonstrations are disputed and not proven by these records ^{[10] [6]}. Further investigation into any single event would require event‑level documentation or admissions beyond the firm‑level evidence assembled in these sources.