The Legal Minefield of Paying Protesters: Can Organizations Face Liability for Creating Unsafe Working Conditions?

The Growing Reality of Paid Protest

First, let’s acknowledge the elephant in the room: paid protesting is real. A groundbreaking 2025 academic paper by legal scholars Deepa Das Acevedo and Alison Dundes Renteln marked the first serious legal examination of this “globally occurring phenomenon.” Commercial enterprises like “Crowds on Demand” openly advertise their services, recruiting people to show up at demonstrations for modest pay—typically a few hundred dollars per appearance.

This isn’t necessarily illegal. Paying someone to exercise their First Amendment rights to speak, assemble, or demonstrate falls within constitutional protections. But here’s where it gets interesting: the legal line gets crossed when payment incentivizes or facilitates illegal acts.

The Independent Contractor Dodge—Does It Hold Up?

Many organizations that pay protesters classify them as independent contractors rather than employees. It’s a convenient arrangement that lets the hiring entity avoid payroll taxes, workers’ compensation insurance, unemployment insurance, and a whole host of employment law obligations. But could this classification actually protect them from liability if things go sideways?

The short answer: probably not.

Worker misclassification is one of the most heavily scrutinized areas of employment law right now. The Department of Labor uses an “economic realities” test to determine whether someone is truly an independent contractor or an employee in disguise. The key factors include:

Behavioral control: Does the organization control how, when, and where the person works?
Financial control: Who provides the tools? How is payment structured?
Relationship: Is this a one-time gig or ongoing relationship?

If an organization is recruiting people, telling them when and where to show up, potentially providing signs or materials, and directing their activities at a protest, that starts looking a lot like an employment relationship—regardless of what the contract says.

California uses an even stricter “ABC test” that presumes everyone is an employee unless the hiring entity can prove otherwise. Under this test, if the work being performed (attending protests) is part of the organization’s usual business, those workers are likely employees.

Enter OSHA: The Unsafe Workplace Argument

Here’s where things get really interesting. The Occupational Safety and Health Act requires employers to provide workplaces “free of known health and safety hazards.” While OSHA standards were designed for traditional workplaces—factories, construction sites, offices—the statute’s General Duty Clause is surprisingly broad.

Could sending someone to a potentially volatile protest constitute creating an unsafe working condition?

Consider the evidence from recent years. Cities have paid out staggering sums to protesters injured by police during demonstrations:

Austin, Texas: $27 million in settlements since 2020
Portland, Oregon: Over $9.1 million and counting
Denver, Colorado: $14 million jury award plus additional settlements totaling $16.5 million
Seattle, Washington: $10 million settlement in 2024

If you’re an organization that regularly pays people to attend protests, you know—or should know—that these events can turn dangerous. Police deploy “less-lethal” weapons that have caused skull fractures, permanent injuries, and in some cases, death. Counter-protesters can become violent. Crowd dynamics can create stampedes.

The legal theory: If you’re sending workers into these known hazards without proper safety equipment, training, or protocols, you could be violating OSHA’s General Duty Clause. The fact that you classified them as independent contractors doesn’t necessarily shield you.

What About Existing Lawsuits?

A review of current litigation reveals no lawsuits specifically targeting organizations for paying protesters and creating unsafe working conditions. While there’s extensive litigation around protest-related injuries, cases directly testing this novel legal theory have yet to emerge.

However, the McKesson v. Doe case demonstrates how courts are wrestling with protest organizer liability. In this case, a police officer sued activist DeRay Mckesson after being injured by an unknown person who threw a rock during a 2016 Black Lives Matter protest. The officer didn’t claim Mckesson threw the rock or directed anyone to do so—just that as the organizer, he should have foreseen the violence.

The Fifth Circuit’s controversial 2023 ruling suggested that a protest organizer could potentially be liable under a “negligent protest” theory. While the Supreme Court declined to review the case in 2024 (with Justice Sotomayor noting concerns), the decision hasn’t been reversed. This creates a worrying precedent: if merely organizing a protest could create liability for others’ violent acts, what about paying people to attend one?

In July 2024, a federal district judge in Louisiana dismissed the lawsuit against McKesson, ruling that “negligence was insufficient to override First Amendment protections for protest.” However, this only applies in that specific jurisdiction and the legal question remains unsettled nationally.

State Legislation Targeting Protest Funders

Several states have introduced or passed legislation specifically targeting organizations that fund protests. These laws vary, but some create:

Civil liability for organizations whose funding supports protests where property damage or violence occurs
Racketeering charges if protest activities meet certain definitions of “riot” or “civil disorder”
Tax penalties removing tax-exempt status from organizations whose officers are convicted of protest-related offenses

Alabama, Arizona, and other states have expanded definitions of who can be held liable for protest-related damages to include those who “fund” or “aid and abet” participants.

Alaska’s Sweeping Civil Liability Provisions

Alaska introduced legislation in January 2025 creating expansive civil liability for protesters who block public places. Under this proposed law, a person “whose passage is obstructed” could sue a protester for:

$10,000 if their rights were infringed
$50,000 if their property was damaged
$100,000 if they were personally injured—plus attorney’s fees and costs

Critically, the civil liability extends to anyone who “directly or indirectly, by words or action, aids, encourages, or authorizes the conduct,” including by “advising” another person or “conspiring” to engage in the conduct. This could easily capture organizations that pay protesters.

The Retaliation Risk

Here’s another wrinkle: what if a paid protester gets injured and then reports the organization for creating unsafe working conditions? Both OSHA and multiple employment discrimination laws prohibit retaliation against workers who:

Report safety violations
File workers’ compensation claims
Complain about working conditions
Participate in investigations

If the organization then terminates them or refuses future work, they could face retaliation claims on top of everything else.

The Misclassification Penalty Stack

If authorities determine that paid protesters were actually employees and not independent contractors, the penalties are severe and can include:

Back wages and overtime (potentially 2-3 years worth)
Unpaid payroll taxes plus penalties and interest
Workers’ compensation premiums and liability for injuries
Unemployment insurance back payments
Employee benefits that should have been provided
Civil penalties of $5,000-$25,000 per violation in some states
Liquidated damages equal to unpaid wages
Attorney’s fees for successful plaintiffs

Companies like Uber have paid nine-figure settlements over misclassification. A New Jersey case resulted in $100 million in penalties for misclassifying 300,000 drivers.

The First Amendment Defense

Organizations would certainly argue that paying people to exercise their First Amendment rights is constitutionally protected speech. They’d point to the 1982 Supreme Court case NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., which held that protest leaders cannot be held liable for violent actions of participants they didn’t direct or intend.

But that case involved volunteer protesters exercising their sincere political beliefs. When you’re paying people to show up, does that change the calculus? When you’re creating what’s essentially a business model around protest participation, do normal commercial regulations apply?

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2024-2025)

The legal landscape around paid protesters, worker classification, and protest liability has seen dramatic developments in the past year:

Federal Enforcement Shift on Worker Classification (May 2025)

In a major policy reversal, the Department of Labor announced on May 1, 2025, that it would no longer enforce the Biden-era 2024 independent contractor rule. This rule had made it significantly harder to classify workers as independent contractors, using a six-factor “totality of the circumstances” test that focused on economic dependence.

The DOL’s Field Assistance Bulletin directs investigators to return to the more business-friendly 2008 framework, which generally gives employers more flexibility in classification decisions. However, there’s a crucial catch: the 2024 rule remains in effect for private litigation. This means:

Government enforcement follows the more lenient 2008 standard
Private lawsuits can still use the stricter 2024 standard
Organizations face different classification tests depending on who’s suing them

For organizations paying protesters, this creates a confusing dual standard. While they may avoid DOL enforcement actions, injured protesters could still sue using the tougher employee classification test.

New Federal Legislation Targeting Protest Funders (July 2025)

Senator Ted Cruz introduced the “Stop Financial Underwriting of Nefarious Demonstrations and Extremist Riots” (Stop FUNDERS) Act in July 2025. This proposed federal legislation would add rioting-related offenses to RICO statutes.

Under this bill, an organization or individual found to have “conspired” with individuals to engage in or encourage a protest deemed a “riot” could face:

Up to 20 years in prison
Asset seizure
Treble damages in civil suits brought by injured parties

Sponsors explicitly cited entities that fund or coordinate protests as potential targets. While the bill hasn’t passed, it signals increasing political appetite for holding protest funders legally accountable.

Campus Protest Crackdown and Federal Funding Threats (2024-2025)

Following widespread campus protests over the Israel-Hamas conflict, multiple developments have emerged:

Federal Actions:

March 2025: Department of Education notified 60 colleges and universities they’re under investigation for Title VI violations related to antisemitic harassment
Trump administration threatened to cut federal funding to universities like Columbia
March 2025: Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained international students involved in protests, including prominent activist Mahmoud Khalil
Attorney General directed DOJ to submit proposals for criminal investigations of large-endowment institutions

State Laws:

Texas SB 2972 (passed 2025): Created sweeping restrictions on campus protests, including overnight bans on expressive activity, identification requirements, and prohibitions on amplified sound during exam periods. A federal judge blocked major provisions in October 2025, ruling they violated First Amendment rights.
Multiple states introduced legislation conditioning federal student aid on protest-related conduct
Some proposals would make students convicted of protest-related offenses ineligible for loan forgiveness programs

University Policies: Hundreds of universities revised their free speech codes to limit protest activity, including:

Bans on overnight demonstrations and encampments
Designated protest zones
Restrictions on when and where protests can occur
Stricter enforcement of trespass policies

Record Settlement Payouts Continue (2024-2025)

Cities continue paying massive settlements for protest-related police violence:

Austin: As of June 2025, payouts reached $27 million for injuries during 2020 protests, with individual settlements ranging from $245,000 to $8 million
Portland: Settlement payments exceeded $9.1 million by July 2025, including $938,000 specifically to journalists and legal observers
Seattle: $10 million settlement approved in 2024 for excessive force during 2020 protests
Denver: $2.5 million settlement in February 2025 for 13 protesters, following a $14 million jury verdict in 2022

These settlements establish clear precedent that protest environments are demonstrably dangerous, which strengthens any OSHA-based argument about unsafe working conditions.

Increased Scrutiny of Protest Funding Organizations (2024-2025)

Conservative watchdog groups and politicians have intensified focus on organizations accused of funding protests:

2024 investigations named Open Society Foundations, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and Sparkplug Foundation as donors to pro-Palestine protest groups
Senator Cruz proposed applying RICO statutes to those who fund “violent” protests in October 2025
Multiple congressional hearings examined university responses to campus protests
Some lawmakers proposed transparency requirements for protest-related donations

State Anti-Protest Legislation Surge (2024-2025)

At least 18 states introduced or passed new anti-protest laws since 2024, including:

Florida: Anti-riot law upheld by state Supreme Court in 2024, providing civil liability protection for drivers who injure protesters while claiming self-defense (though criminal prosecution remains possible)

Kentucky: Criminalized “disruptive protests” inside the state capitol

North Carolina: Proposed additional penalties for masked protesters (later amended to preserve medical exemptions)

Arizona: Expanded definition of “riot” to include protests resulting in any property damage

Multiple States: Introduced bills making it a federal crime to block interstate highways, with penalties up to 15 years and $10,000 fines

California Lawsuits Testing Protest Rights (2024-2025)

Two significant California cases are actively defining the boundaries of protest rights:

Ellutzi v. Regents of the University of California (September 2024): Students and faculty sued UC Santa Cruz after being summarily banned from campus for participating in a Gaza Solidarity Encampment
Anonymous Students v. UCLA, UC Santa Cruz, UC Davis (2024): Students allege universities violated state civil rights laws by failing to prevent what they describe as antisemitic harassment during protests

These cases could further clarify whether California’s Leonard Law (which extends First Amendment protections to private university campuses) applies to protest-related discipline.

What This Means Going Forward

The legal landscape is unsettled but rapidly evolving in several directions:

For organizations considering paying protesters:

Worker classification is more complex than ever – Different standards apply depending on whether you’re facing government enforcement or private litigation
State laws vary wildly – What’s protected in one jurisdiction might trigger RICO charges in another
Political targeting is real – Expect increased scrutiny from congressional committees and state investigations
Campus protests face special restrictions – Federal funding threats and new state laws create unique risks
Documentation is critical – Cities are paying hundreds of millions in protest-related settlements, establishing that protests are objectively dangerous environments

For policymakers and prosecutors:

The floodgates are opening on multiple legal theories:

RICO charges for protest funders
Worker misclassification claims
OSHA violations for unsafe working conditions
Civil liability for “aiding and abetting” protest-related damages
Federal funding conditions tied to campus protest policies

For workers:

If you’re being paid to attend protests:

Document everything—hours, conditions, safety concerns, injuries
Understand you may have employee rights regardless of classification
Know that the organization hiring you faces genuine legal liability if you’re injured
Be aware of immigration consequences if you’re not a U.S. citizen

The Bottom Line

Can organizations be held liable for creating unsafe working conditions by paying protesters? The honest answer is: we’re about to find out.

The legal framework exists:

Employment law provisions on worker classification (though enforcement is currently in flux)
OSHA’s workplace safety requirements
State and proposed federal laws targeting protest funders
Emerging litigation around protest organizer liability
Hundreds of millions in settlement payments proving protest dangers

The fact that someone is classified as an independent contractor doesn’t create immunity—especially if that classification itself is illegal under the (still-applicable-in-private-litigation) 2024 DOL rule. And the fact that an activity involves First Amendment rights doesn’t mean it’s exempt from basic employment and safety laws.

What’s new in 2025 is the rapid acceleration of legal and political pressure from multiple angles simultaneously:

Federal legislation explicitly targeting protest funders with RICO charges
DOL creating a confusing dual-standard on worker classification
States passing aggressive anti-protest laws with civil liability provisions
Universities facing federal funding threats over protest responses
Record settlement payouts establishing protest dangers

This is no longer a theoretical legal argument. With the Stop FUNDERS Act pending, state RICO provisions expanding, and cities paying out hundreds of millions for protest injuries, someone will make this case soon.

When they do, it could fundamentally change how organizations think about funding and organizing public demonstrations. The safest prediction? The first major lawsuit combining employment law violations, OSHA safety claims, and protest funding will arrive within the next 12-24 months.

And given the political climate, the settlements already being paid, and the documented evidence of serious injuries at demonstrations, that plaintiff will have a stronger case than most people realize.