Class Action Investigation
Fiverr’s Hidden Tax on Your Hustle
The Anatomy of a Legal Bait-and-Switch
Fiverr is one of the most recognizable names in the gig economy. Millions of people, from small business owners to side-hustle hopefuls, use its platform to hire freelancers for everything from logo design to software development. The pitch is simple: browse, pick a freelancer, pay the listed price, get your work done. The company built an entire brand on that simplicity.
The lawsuit filed by Oakland resident Marcus Johnson alleges that the simplicity is a lie. According to the complaint filed in Alameda County Superior Court on January 17, 2025, Fiverr systematically shows consumers one price throughout the entire research and selection process, then swaps in a higher total at the very last moment before payment. The mechanism is called “drip pricing,” and California made it explicitly illegal as of July 1, 2024 under Senate Bill 478, the Honest Pricing Law.
The complaint walks through the transaction step by step with screenshots. A consumer looking for a logo, for example, sees a $40 price on the initial listing. They then invest time reading the freelancer’s qualifications, reviewing their portfolio, and checking consumer reviews — all the effort that makes someone psychologically invested in finishing what they started. Then they click “Continue.” The $40 price appears again. They click through to the next screen. The $40 price appears again — twice. The “Continue” button itself displays $40. That is five separate confirmations of the same price. Then, at the payment screen, a $5.20 “service fee” appears. That fee equals 13 percent of the advertised price and was never mentioned before.
— Complaint, Paragraph 32
Johnson’s own experience follows the same script. He was shopping for a book cover design and a cartoon mascot — the kind of project that requires real research into a freelancer’s style and track record. After investing that time, he selected a service listed at $35. At the final step, a $4.93 service fee materialized, representing 14 percent of the listed price. He paid $39.93 total. The complaint states that Johnson “believed that the initially listed $35 price would be the actual price he would pay” and that he “relied on the listed $35 price in comparing the service he purchased to other available services.” He states he would have chosen a different service, or no service at all, had he known the real price.
Advertised Price vs. Actual Charge: Johnson’s Transaction & Complaint Example
The Non-Financial Ledger
What the Dollar Amount Can’t Capture
Let’s start with what this looks like on the ground. You’re a freelancer yourself, maybe, or a small business owner. You’ve got a project that needs a logo, a voiceover, a website tweak. Your budget is real and finite. You go to Fiverr because the price looks right. You read through a stranger’s portfolio with the seriousness of someone hiring for a real job, because to you, it is. You look at their five-star reviews and their turnaround time. You think about what you can afford and whether this particular person’s work is worth it. You make a decision. You click “Continue.” You are, in every meaningful sense of the word, done shopping.
Then the fee appears. It’s not $4.93 in the abstract — it’s $4.93 that confirms what you already suspected: the price you saw was never the price. The platform knew this the whole time. Every screen that showed you that $35 figure was designed to make you feel comfortable with a number that wasn’t real. The complaint’s description of this moment is precise and brutal: only after “seeing a $40 price listed no fewer than five times, and likely after investing significant time in selecting the freelancer and service of her choice — is the full price of transaction revealed to the consumer.” Five times. After all that work. On the last screen.
The lawsuit cites research on this exact mechanism. Consumers who are not shown the full price — including mandatory fees — at the start of a transaction “ended up spending about 20% more money and were 14% more likely to complete” it than consumers who were shown the full price up front. That 14% gap is not a coincidence. That’s the architecture of regret working as intended. You’ve already imagined the finished product. You’ve already told yourself this freelancer was the right choice. Backing out now feels like losing something, even though you haven’t gained anything yet. The complaint calls these “oppressive psychological mechanisms on which drip pricing depends.” That language is careful and deliberate. It’s describing a trap.
— Complaint, ¶ 13, citing FTC Dark Patterns Report
This isn’t about $4.93. It’s about the systemic devaluation of your time and attention. The complaint acknowledges that Johnson spent “significant time” selecting his freelancer before reaching the checkout screen. That time was spent in good faith, under the belief that the price he was evaluating was the actual price. When the bait-and-switch finally revealed itself, that time became something Fiverr extracted from him without compensation and without consent. The law recognizes this as an injury: the complaint specifically states that Johnson “suffered damage by spending time and money he would not have spent but for Defendant’s misleading drip pricing.” Your attention, your research, your decision-making energy — these are real resources, and Fiverr’s design deliberately consumed them in service of a price that was never on offer.
There is also a dignity dimension that the legal documents can only gesture toward. Being deceived in a commercial transaction — even for a few dollars — carries a particular sting when you are someone who cannot easily absorb the difference. The gig economy’s entire promise is built on the proposition that platforms make it easier, cheaper, and fairer for regular people to buy and sell creative and professional work. Fiverr markets itself as a democratizing force. The behavior described in this complaint inverts that promise. It uses the appearance of transparency — a clean price, displayed repeatedly, designed to build trust — as the mechanism for the deception itself. The more you trust the number, the harder the switch lands.
The White House’s own analysis cited in the complaint puts the macro version of this harm plainly: “Consumers may be lured in with the promise of a low price, but when they get to the register, they discover that price was never really available.” That sentence describes millions of individual moments of frustration and betrayal every single day across the American economy. In Fiverr’s case, those moments are built into the product by design. The fee isn’t an accident or an oversight. It is a mandatory charge that Fiverr chose to withhold from every price display across every listing on its platform until the precise moment when a consumer is least likely to walk away. That is a choice. It was made deliberately, repeatedly, and at scale.
Legal Receipts: The Complaint, Verbatim
These are direct quotations from the filed complaint and its cited legal authorities. Every word below is sourced from the document.
“California law prohibits ‘drip pricing’ — the practice of listing one price for a good or service up front, then adding one or more hidden ‘junk fees’ to the total price just before the consumer decides to complete the transaction — as a form of dishonest bait and switch advertising.” Complaint, ¶ 1
“Fiverr, the owner and operator of an online freelancing platform, does just what the law prohibits. Over and over again, it lists one upfront price to entice consumers into making a purchasing decision, only to pull the rug out from under their feet at the last stage of the transaction by adding hidden, mandatory junk fees when consumers have already decided to complete the transaction in reliance on the upfront price.” Complaint, ¶ 2
“Only now — after seeing a $40 price listed no fewer than five times, and likely after investing significant time in selecting the freelancer and service of her choice — is the full price of transaction revealed to the consumer.” Complaint, ¶ 33
“A junk ‘service fee’ of $5.20, amounting to 13 percent of the listed $40 price, has been added to the consumer’s total at the final step of the transaction.” Complaint, ¶ 34
“After completing the steps described above, Johnson was confronted with a junk $4.93 ‘service fee,’ amounting to 14 percent of the listed price.” Complaint, ¶ 38
“Johnson believed that the initially listed $35 price would be the actual price he would pay. In other words, Johnson believed the $35 price included all mandatory fees (excluding taxes and shipping charges, which did not apply here).” Complaint, ¶ 40
“Johnson relied on the listed $35 price in comparing the service he purchased to other available services, and in his initial purchasing decision. Johnson would have purchased a different service on Fiverr or no services at all had he known that the price was in fact $39.93, rather than the listed $35 price.” Complaint, ¶ 41
“Defendant has unjustly retained the benefit Plaintiff conferred on it because Defendant procured the benefit through unlawful and misleading drip pricing, as well as through the oppressive psychological mechanisms on which drip pricing depends.” Complaint, ¶ 70
“Defendant violated Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 by (a) unlawfully engaging in drip pricing, in violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the False Advertising Law, and Section 5 of the FTC Act; (b) unfairly engaging in unethical bait and switch advertising that injures consumers and benefits no one but Defendant, and violates the legislatively declared policy of price transparency; and (c) fraudulently advertising an upfront price that was lower than the total price — including hidden junk fees — it would ultimately charge.” Complaint, ¶ 65
“‘[T]he price a Californian sees should be the price they pay.'” Complaint, ¶ 9, quoting California Department of Justice, SB 478 Frequently Asked Questions
“‘Can a business comply with this law by disclosing additional required fees before a consumer finalizes a transaction? No. The advertised or listed price must be the full price that the consumer is required to pay. … If a business chooses to list a price for a good or service, the advertised price must be the entire amount the consumer will have to pay, not including any fees for optional services or features, taxes, or shipping charges.'” Complaint, ¶ 22, quoting California Department of Justice, SB 478 FAQ at 2–3
“‘Junk fees cost American families tens of billions of dollars each year and inhibit competition, hurting consumers, workers, small businesses, and entrepreneurs.'” Complaint, ¶ 16, quoting White House Biden-Harris Administration Statement, October 11, 2023
“‘Drip pricing interferes with consumers’ ability to price-compare and manipulates them into paying fees that are either hidden entirely or not presented until late in the transaction.'” Complaint, ¶ 17, quoting FTC, Bringing Dark Patterns to Light (Sept. 2022)
“Consumers who were not shown full prices, including mandatory fees, at the beginning of a transaction ‘ended up spending about 20% more money and were 14% more likely to complete’ it than consumers to whom junk fees were disclosed up front.” Complaint, ¶ 18, citing FTC, Bringing Dark Patterns to Light at 9
“‘An honest business that sets forth the total price of its product at the outset will be at a significant disadvantage when compared to a seller that advertises an artificially low price to draw consumers in, then adds mandatory charges late in the transaction.'” Complaint, ¶ 19, quoting FTC, Bringing Dark Patterns to Light at 9
“Hidden junk fees are thus ‘an evolution of bait-and-switch schemes.'” Complaint, ¶ 11, quoting White House, The Price Isn’t Right (March 5, 2024)
“The State Assembly declared that SB 478 is ‘intended to specifically prohibit drip pricing, which involves advertising a price that is less than the actual price that a consumer will have to pay for a good or service,’ and identified drip pricing as a form of ‘bait and switch advertising.'” Complaint, ¶ 20, citing S.B. 478, 2023–2024 Leg. §§ 1(a)–(b) (Cal. 2023)
Societal Impact Mapping
Environmental Degradation
The direct environmental footprint of Fiverr’s junk fee scheme is not the headline here — there are no smokestacks or chemical spills in this complaint. But the broader practice of drip pricing and the digital dark patterns that enable it carry an indirect environmental cost that deserves accounting. The gig economy platforms that Fiverr sits alongside — DoorDash, Lyft, Airbnb, all named in the complaint as comparable businesses operating the same connection-platform model — collectively run data infrastructure at massive scale. The psychological manipulation that drip pricing relies on generates additional page loads, extended session times, and repeat browsing behavior as consumers research, decide, return, compare, and re-evaluate pricing that was never stated truthfully.
Every screen a consumer loads while operating under the false impression that a $35 price is a $35 price represents compute cycles, server load, and energy draw that the consumer’s true, informed behavior would not have required. The FTC’s own research notes that consumers who are not shown full prices “ended up spending about 20% more money and were 14% more likely to complete” transactions. That elevated transaction rate translates directly into more digital processing, more data stored, and more infrastructure maintained to support a volume of commerce that transparent pricing would reduce. The environmental case against drip pricing is a downstream consequence of the economic manipulation at its core, but it is real.
The complaint’s class — all California residents who purchased on Fiverr since July 1, 2024, estimated in the thousands — represents thousands of inflated, manipulated transactions generating platform revenue that a legally compliant, transparent pricing model would not have produced. Each of those transactions ran on servers, consumed bandwidth, and contributed to the digital exhaust of a company that chose volume-over-honesty as its operating model.
Public Health
The psychological harm documented in this complaint is a public health matter, and the court’s characterization of it as such is not incidental. The complaint explicitly names the “oppressive psychological mechanisms on which drip pricing depends” as part of Fiverr’s unjust enrichment claim. This is legal language for what behavioral economists call manufactured commitment — the exploitation of a consumer’s sunk-cost bias and psychological investment to override their rational financial judgment at the moment of purchase.
The FTC research cited in the complaint describes this experience in terms of frustration and powerlessness: consumers at the checkout stage feel “committed to a purchase” and go through with it “despite feeling frustrated that they have no idea how much it costs until it’s too late.” Chronic exposure to that kind of frustration — to systems designed to make you feel trapped in decisions by withholding information — is a documented stressor. Financial stress is one of the leading drivers of anxiety, depression, and interpersonal conflict in the United States. A scheme that systematically inflates costs beyond what consumers budgeted for, while deploying psychological architecture to prevent them from walking away, is a stress-delivery mechanism at scale.
The White House analysis cited in the complaint estimates that junk fees cost American families “tens of billions of dollars each year.” For families living paycheck to paycheck — the population most likely to budget carefully before making a purchase on a freelancing platform — a 13 to 14 percent surprise surcharge at checkout is a real disruption. It is the difference between a budget that works and one that doesn’t. The cumulative weight of thousands of these small betrayals — across Fiverr and the broader landscape of platforms that use identical drip-pricing mechanics — constitutes a diffuse but measurable public health burden on the financial wellbeing of working people.
Economic Inequality
The economic inequality dimension of this lawsuit is where the injury lands hardest, and the complaint’s legal framework makes it visible. The class Fiverr is alleged to have harmed consists of the exact people that platforms like Fiverr claim to serve: individual consumers, small business owners, independent contractors, creatives, and entrepreneurs who are using a marketplace to stretch their budgets and grow their operations. These are people who budgeted $35 for a book cover because $35 was what they had to spend on a book cover. The gap between $35 and $39.93 is not abstract.
The complaint notes that plaintiff Johnson “would have purchased a different service on Fiverr or no services at all had he known that the price was in fact $39.93.” That sentence describes price-sensitivity — the financial reality of someone for whom $4.93 is a meaningful variable in a purchasing decision. Drip pricing is specifically designed to exploit price-sensitive consumers by keeping them in a transaction past the point where they can act on their sensitivity. The FTC research cited in the complaint proves this design works: hidden-fee victims complete purchases at a 14% higher rate than informed consumers. That 14% is almost entirely composed of people whose true financial preference was to pay less or walk away. Fiverr captured their money anyway.
The complaint also makes an explicit case for the harm drip pricing causes to honest businesses and market competition. As it states, citing the FTC: “An honest business that sets forth the total price of its product at the outset will be at a significant disadvantage when compared to a seller that advertises an artificially low price to draw consumers in, then adds mandatory charges late in the transaction.” This is a structural economic distortion. When a company like Fiverr is allowed to advertise false prices with impunity, every competitor who plays by the rules is penalized in the market. Honest pricing becomes a competitive disadvantage. The race to the bottom in advertised prices — while hiding the real costs until checkout — is a system that concentrates economic advantage in the hands of companies willing to deceive, at the direct expense of consumers and the honest businesses competing for their attention.
The proposed class is estimated to number in the thousands in California alone. Fiverr operates nationally and globally. The economic transfer implied by a 13 to 14 percent hidden surcharge applied to every transaction on the platform — across every state, every day, since long before SB 478 put a name to the violation — is staggering. The complaint seeks restitution for California class members who purchased after July 1, 2024. The money extracted from all other consumers, in all other jurisdictions, in all other years, remains with Fiverr.
The “Cost of a Life” Metric
What Now?
The lawsuit is filed. The law is clear. Here is what you can do with this information.
Corporate Roles Named in This Action
Regulatory Watchlist
Grassroots and Mutual Aid Actions
- Screenshot everything. If you shop on any platform that shows you a price before checkout, document every screen. Your screenshots are evidence.
- Share this investigation. The people most harmed by drip pricing are the ones least likely to know a law now exists to stop it. Get this in front of your community.
- Support local freelancers directly. Every time you hire a freelancer through a direct relationship instead of a platform fee-extraction layer, you keep more money in their pocket and less in a corporation that lobbied against the laws designed to protect you.
- Demand full-price transparency from every platform you use. DoorDash. Airbnb. Lyft. The complaint names these companies as operating the same type of marketplace as Fiverr. Junk fees are not a Fiverr problem. They are a business model. Organize with neighbors, local business associations, and digital rights groups to push for national Honest Pricing legislation modeled on California’s SB 478.
- If you are a California resident who used Fiverr after July 1, 2024, consult with the attorneys of record. Strauss Borrelli PLLC (Chicago), CohenMalad LLP (Indianapolis), and Stranch, Jennings & Garvey PLLC (Nashville) are counsel for the proposed class.
The source document for this investigation is attached below.
Explore by category
Product Safety Violations
When companies sell dangerous goods, consumers pay the price.
View Cases →Financial Fraud & Corruption
Lies, scams, and executive impunity that distort markets.
View Cases →
