Enforcement Is Catching Up to Online Fundraising. Here’s What Platforms Should Learn from Alaska and California.

Regulators are signaling a clear shift in how they evaluate online fundraising: nonprofit consent, donor transparency, and clean fund flows are no longer “best practices.” They are becoming the standard that enforcement actions are built around.

In March 2026, Alaska’s Attorney General announced lawsuits against multiple crowdfunding and fundraising platforms, alleging they created donation pages for charities without permission and solicited donations using publicly available nonprofit information. The state is seeking court orders requiring removal of unauthorized pages and civil penalties.

Days earlier, California Attorney General Rob Bonta co-led a bipartisan coalition that sent a demand letter to GoFundMe after reports that it created charity pages for organizations nationwide without their knowledge or consent.

Different states. Similar themes. One message:

If your product enables donors to give to nonprofits, you should assume your practices will be examined through the lens of consent, disclosures, and payout integrity.

Why regulators are focusing on consent and transparency

The alleged conduct in Alaska and the concerns raised in the multistate GoFundMe inquiry center on a few recurring risk areas:

• Using a nonprofit’s name without explicit permission. Creating donation pages or listing charities without consent can mislead donors and harm the nonprofit’s brand.
• Donor-facing presentation and disclosures. How fees, tips, or “optional contributions” are shown matters, especially if donors assume the full amount benefits the charity.
• Control of the donation experience. Regulators are increasingly asking who is actually soliciting, who is receiving funds, and what record exists to prove donations were handled as represented.

This direction aligns with California AB 488, which modernized rules for online charitable fundraising and introduced a distinct compliance category for “charitable fundraising platforms.” AB 488 requires written nonprofit consent before a platform uses a charity’s name in solicitations, alongside registration and reporting obligations.

The core requirements platforms should revisit now

If you operate a fundraising platform, a donation tool, or any product that allows people to donate online, legal teams are increasingly assessing a few fundamentals.

1) Written nonprofit consent is not optional

Consent needs to be explicit, recorded, and tied to how the nonprofit will be represented. 

What strong consent practices look like:

• Clear approval for use of name, logo, and campaign context
• A record of who approved and when
• A durable way for nonprofits to update preferences over time

2) Registration and reporting requirements are expanding

California AB 488 is the most visible example today, but it is unlikely to be the last. States are paying attention to digital fundraising gaps, and the enforcement posture suggests more scrutiny, not less.

If your counsel is not already tracking AB 488 obligations for your model, it is worth prioritizing.

3) Your fund flow should be defensible

Regulators care about whether donations were handled in a way that matches donor expectations. That includes clarity on:

• Where the money lands first
• Whether it is segregated from operational funds
• How fees, tips, or platform revenue are taken
• The timeline for the nonprofit to actually receive the funds

4) Reporting depends on tracking, and tracking must be designed

If annual reports are required, you need reliable data on:

• Total donations received by campaign and nonprofit
• Amounts disbursed and when
• Fees withheld and why
• Refunds, chargebacks, and adjustments

Many platforms discover late that their systems do not produce regulator-ready reports without significant manual work.