The Lawsuit Challenging GoFundMe’s Preselected Donor “Tips”

The Facts

A checkout screenshot embedded in the complaint starts with a $10 charitable contribution. Beneath the donation field, the page displays “Tip GoFundMe services” and a slider set to 17.5%. At the bottom, the order summary lists a $10 donation, a $1.75 GoFundMe tip, and $11.75 due.

The lawsuit alleges that GoFundMe selected the tip automatically rather than asking the donor to add it. According to the plaintiffs, the page didn’t clearly say the tip was optional. Removing it allegedly required the donor to notice the charge, understand that the slider controlled it, and move the setting to zero.

That design is the substantive dispute. The plaintiffs call it a “negative option”: a transaction in which silence or inaction is treated as agreement to an additional charge. GoFundMe’s order summary displayed the tip before payment in the screenshot, but the lawsuit argues that display alone didn’t amount to informed, affirmative consent.

How the Checkout Allegedly Worked

1. Choose a causeA donor opens a fundraiser and selects the option to donate.
2. Enter an amountThe selected charitable contribution appears prominently on the checkout page.
3. Tip appears by defaultThe complaint’s image shows the tip slider already set to 17.5% after $10 is entered.
4. Pay the combined totalThe order summary adds the tip to the donation unless the donor changes the setting.

The practical consequence alleged here is an added charge, not necessarily a reduction in the stated donation. In the filing’s illustrated example, the fundraiser’s $10 and GoFundMe’s $1.75 appear as separate line items. The donor pays both.

The complaint says the tip was removable, but argues that this choice was hidden in practice because the checkout didn’t label the charge “optional” or provide a conventional opt-in control. The page instead presented a percentage slider and an “Enter custom tip” link.

What the Charges Meant for the Named Donors

Sandra Donovan, an Illinois resident, says she made a $50 donation on March 27, 2026. The complaint alleges that GoFundMe added an $8.25 tip that she didn’t know existed and didn’t know she could remove. She says she wouldn’t have paid it had the checkout clearly identified it as optional.

Ebony Baker, a Georgia resident, alleges a similar experience involving a $10 donation made on September 14, 2025. Her section of the complaint says the added tip was $1 and that she didn’t knowingly authorize it.

Those are modest individual sums. Because of that, the plaintiffs (the people filing the complaint) argue that pursuing each small charge separately would be impractical. Which is why they’re grouping together multiple GoFundMe donors to combine all of their tiny grievances into one giant one!

The filing doesn’t reconcile those figures. It also refers in one paragraph to moving a slider from 16.5% to zero, while its images display 17.5%. The record therefore supports the narrower point that the pictured checkout used a preselected percentage, but it doesn’t establish one uniform default rate for every donor or transaction.

The Dispute Over What the “Tip” Paid For

The plaintiffs challenge more than the default setting. They argue that the checkout’s explanation made the tip appear necessary to keep GoFundMe operating. According to the complaint, donors could reasonably read “0% platform fee” and “relies primarily” on donor generosity as a claim that tips were the company’s main operating support.

The lawsuit alleges that GoFundMe also receives transaction fees connected to donations and that the tip is additional profit unrelated to processing a particular contribution. Those assertions are made “on information and belief,” a phrase indicating that the plaintiffs allege the facts but expect to seek supporting information through the litigation process.

The supplied record doesn’t include GoFundMe’s contracts, fee schedules, internal accounting, or revenue breakdown. It therefore doesn’t independently establish how much of the company’s operating income came from tips, transaction fees, or other sources. The complaint’s statement that GoFundMe generated $55 million in 2024 revenue, up 90% from 2023, also doesn’t identify how much was tip revenue.

The screenshot documents what one version of the checkout displayed. It does not, by itself, establish how every donor saw the page or how GoFundMe accounted for the resulting money.

Evidence, Context, and Missing Proof

The complaint’s strongest concrete material is visual: images show a contribution field, tip language, a percentage slider, and an order total containing both the donation and the tip. The filing also quotes Federal Trade Commission guidance stating that a pre-checked box isn’t affirmative consent. That guidance supplies regulatory context for the plaintiffs’ theory; it isn’t a finding that GoFundMe’s particular interface broke the law.

The filing also reproduces three consumer complaints from Reddit and a news report. Those accounts may show that other people objected to GoFundMe’s tipping presentation, but they aren’t sworn testimony and don’t establish how common the experience was.

Another allegation says 21 attorneys general and charitable regulators demanded action from GoFundMe over default tips. The supplied complaint doesn’t attach that letter or clearly identify its date, signatories, factual findings, or GoFundMe’s response. Those details would matter before treating the regulators’ reported concern as evidence about the specific transactions in this case.

Still missing are records showing how often donors changed the default, how many paid a tip without intending to, whether checkout versions varied by date or location, and what GoFundMe knew from user testing or complaint data. Those questions go directly to the proposed classes and to the allegation that the interface was designed to exploit donor inaction.

The Timeline

What the Lawsuit Claims—and What No Court Has Decided

The complaint brings two formal claims: one under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and one under the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act. It also argues in its factual allegations that the checkout conflicted with the federal Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act and describes the tips as a form of drip pricing, but it doesn’t plead separate counts under those theories.

The plaintiffs ask the court to certify Illinois and Georgia classes, stop the challenged practices, return money allegedly obtained through them, and award damages, interest, fees, and other available relief. The filing says the proposed classes contain at least 100 members and that aggregate claims exceed $5 million. Those are jurisdictional allegations, not an award or proven measure of loss.

No decision in the supplied record establishes deception, unlawful conduct, damages, or unjust enrichment. The court also hasn’t certified either proposed class. Certification would determine whether the named plaintiffs may litigate on behalf of the broader groups; it wouldn’t itself establish that GoFundMe is liable.

GoFundMe’s substantive response is absent from the source. That means the record doesn’t show whether the company disputes the screenshots, contends that the tip was adequately disclosed, challenges the plaintiffs’ descriptions of their transactions, or offers a different account of how its fees fund the service.

What a Legitimate Fix Looks Like

If the checkout operated as alleged, the most direct remedy would be to make the donor’s choice unmistakable before payment: begin the tip at zero, label it optional, require an affirmative selection, and explain in plain language where the money goes and how GoFundMe otherwise earns revenue from a donation.

A clearer design would also preserve a visible itemized total without making donors manipulate a percentage slider to decline an added charge. If litigation later establishes that donors paid tips without informed consent, any refund or restitution process would need transaction records capable of identifying who paid, how much, and under which version of the checkout.