The presence of nonprofit organizations in the digital space is a complex arena where technology intersects with trust, platforms with identities, and donors with algorithms.

New challenges have emerged that were not previously as clearly articulated, the most notable of which is the creation of unauthorized donation pages on crowdfunding platforms, based on public data and logos and descriptions belonging to organizations without permission.

This translated article with retained literary rights discusses one of the most important issues that has reopened the discussion on: who owns the relationship with the donor? And how can organizations protect their digital identity in an environment that is changing faster than their ability to regulate it?

Last week, many nonprofit organizations expressed waves of concern after discovering that one unauthorized crowdfunding platform quietly created over 1.4 million donation pages attributed to them, relying on public data, published reports, and technical partnerships with intermediaries.

According to the platform, the idea theoretically aimed to “facilitate the discovery of nonprofit organizations and help raise funds for them,” even if those organizations did not initiate donation campaigns themselves. However, the outcome was entirely counterproductive: harsh criticism and rising concern. Many organizations were surprised to find that complete pages had been designed in their name without permission for their logos, messages, and donation links, and that every donation made through those pages incurs a fee of up to 2.2% + 30 cents on the pretext of “processing the payment” and “ensuring the amount reaches its destination,” in addition to prompting donors to leave an “optional tip” averaging 15% that goes directly to the operating company.

For nonprofits, the problem of “violation of consent” was not the only shock, but the greater fear that the platform would financially benefit from their name and the trust of their audience under the guise of “facilitating access.” This move opened the door to sensitive questions regarding intellectual property, donor trust, and the ethics of fundraising without permission.

Paulina Majkowski, CEO of the Penfield Children’s Center, clearly summarized the concern: “Any step that may confuse the organization’s reputation or relationship with donors, even if it seems simple, places an unnecessary and heavy burden on it. Transparency here is not a luxury but a guarantee of donor trust and understanding of their donation path. It is unfortunate to see high fees at a time when small issues need every penny collected.”

Nonprofits are called to protect their identity and donor trust

Anne Gingrich, Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Association of Nonprofits, states that even if unauthorized crowdfunding platforms “intend to help” while taking their cut, that does not justify leaving the pages active.

She adds: “The intention may be to facilitate support for humanitarian causes, but creating pages in the names of organizations without permission raises serious issues: from intellectual property violation, to inaccurate information, to undermining the foundation of trust and transparency.”

She believes that every organization has the right to decide where and how its name is represented, and that they should review those pages and delete unauthorized ones to protect their brand integrity and public trust.

The platform apologizes and changes its policies

The response was swift and loud. Within days, the platform issued a public apology, acknowledging that it had overstepped its boundaries. It announced radical changes: the pages became entirely optional (Opt-in), and pages not requested by organizations will be deleted and removed from search engines, with no page to appear in the future without explicit consent from the organization itself.

The platform wrote in its apology: “We fully acknowledge that what happened caused confusion and concern and diverted attention from the missions of the organizations we aim to support. Trust is the foundation of our relationship with the nonprofit sector, and we are committed to rebuilding it through better communication and deeper collaboration.” However, this apology, despite its importance, revealed a larger truth: even “goodwill” technical initiatives can become a burden when they ignore the principle of control and consent.

Diane Yentel, President of the National Council of Nonprofits, described what happened as “a violation of trust,” but praised the platform’s quick response to correct the mistake. She wrote: “This incident is a reminder that organizations should retain the right to determine when and how to deal with their partners. Their expertise must be respected and listened to before any step that touches their operations is taken.”

The bigger lesson: Protecting the relationship with the donor

Despite the apology and the retraction, many believe that the issue is not yet closed. Donald Summers, founder of Altruist Impact Accelerator, believes that what occurred is not merely a passing error but part of a larger pattern in which technology platforms attempt to stand between the nonprofit organization and its donors.

Donald states clearly: “The idea was bad from the start. Any intermediary that inserts itself between the organization and the donor weakens the foundation on which giving is built. When you allow a platform to ‘own’ your donor experience, you relinquish your most important asset, and that is ignorance, not strategy.”

He adds that true success in fundraising is not built on SEO tricks or partnerships that shine on paper, but on the direct human relationships connecting you with those who support your mission, a sentiment many in the sector agree with.

Today, at a time when the nonprofit sector faces harsh challenges, with declining public donations and eroding trust, what has happened was not merely a technical slip but a wake-up call. Technology can amplify giving, yes. But it cannot replace trust, nor transparency, nor explicit consent, and thus the lesson is clear for every organization:

Protect your brand.

And never give up your individual relationship with the donor.

Own your narrative.

In the end, the strongest relationship is not the one created by algorithms… but one built from human to human.

What should nonprofits do now?

Search for your organization's name on any unauthorized crowdfunding platforms or donation pages created by individuals without permission; the existence of a page you know nothing about is an early warning sign of danger to your reputation and donor trust.

1) Check for unauthorized pages in your organization's name

Direct donors to your official channels only, where their donations reach in full without unannounced cuts or commissions.

If there is a donation page that your organization did not create or endorse, allow it to be deleted or request its removal.

2) Remove unauthorized pages immediately

Your relationship with the donor is the foundation of your sustainability, and ensuring the removal of fake pages keeps the donation process direct, transparent, and under your control, not through a third party that takes a cut from the donation or alters the message.

3) Regain control of your donation experience

Check electronic directory platforms, public databases, and any site displaying information about your organization, correcting outdated or incorrect information to protect your credibility and strengthen donor trust in your brand.

4) Review your entire digital presence

Inform your team, board, and audience about your official donation channels and clarify that your organization values transparency, and that direct donation through your site is the safest and most impactful way to support your mission.

5) Communicate proactively

This issue reveals that the challenges facing nonprofits are no longer limited to fundraising or program management, but extend to protecting their digital presence and maintaining their relationship with their donors. Trust, which is the capital of this sector, can be affected by a single technical move that goes beyond the bounds of consent or lacks transparency. Thus, it becomes essential for every organization to have clear policies that govern the use of its identity, review where it appears, and clearly define the donation channels that genuinely represent it.

Maintaining a direct relationship with the donor is not only an organizational choice, it is a fundamental pillar for the sustainability of impact and clarity of message.

The article is translated with adaptation from grantstation.com