Before you donate to a 'go fund me' page do your due diligence. What began as an organic way to help average Americans raise money for good causes has morphed into a way to rip people off. The first GoFundMe page was officially launched on May 10, 2010, and was originally called "Coin Piggy" and later "Create-a-Fund" before becoming the platform it is today. Created as a for-profit crowdfunding platform, GoFundMe allows people to raise money for events ranging from life events such as celebrations and graduations to challenging circumstances like accidents and illnesses. It wasn't long before bad actors found ways to abuse the platform. GoFundMe controversies fall into two distinct categories: platform-wide corporate scandals and individual criminal scams. Here's four ways that individual grifters have managed to turn a good thing into a bad thing: 1. The "Good Samaritan" Hoax. Perpetrators fabricate a heartwarming story that urges people to donate to. 2. The Faked Childhood-Cancer Hoax. A parent falsely appeals for help for their terminally ill child. At some point they post that the child died and has been cremated. 3. The "Degenerative Disease" Hoax. Someone begins by telling friends, family, and online donors that they have a rare, terminal degenerative illness. 4. The Faked Animal Cruelty Hoax. This scam targets animal lovers by claiming their pet suffered a grievous injury, and they need help to pay for medical bills. These examples are the most common ways people get scammed donating to a GoFundMe site but are far from the only ways the platform has been abused. Platform wide abuse has spurred government investigations for years. One of the biggest abuses stemmed from 1.4 million GoFundMe pages created for fundraising and donations that were formed without the prior knowledge or consent from the charities they featured. As of March 2026, a coalition of 22 state Attorneys General launched an investigation and issued a scathing letter accusing GoFundMe of "identity plagiarism." Update: GoFundMe has removed unauthorized donation web pages and is now requiring prior consent for charity web pages as of June 3, 2026. You'd think after all of these years this problem should have been addressed a long time ago. Then there's spoofing threats that are still happening. Beyond platform fraud, scammers regularly "spoof" real GoFundMe pages - copying text and imagery verbatim-and re-uploading them to unmonitored alternative crowdfunding sites that request untraceable payment methods like Bitcoin. There are good alternatives to GoFundMe for families. For example, SupportNow doesn't charge any fees to participate, unlike GoFundMe that charges 2.9 percent from every donation and asks for an additional tip. The bottom line is do your research before giving away your hard-earned money to anyone. As it Stands, I'm waiting for the MAGA man who dressed up as Uncle Sam in Trump's Great American State Fair to start his own GoFundMe page after being arrested for perversion.

Archimedes-Desal, a Royal Oak, Michigan-based team, will participate in Extended Team Testing for Track A of the $119 million XPRIZE Water Scarcity competition. The team is the only Michigan-based qualifier in the global challenge addressing water access for over 2 billion people worldwide. The team's gravity-driven reverse osmosis system has received recognition from international desalination experts, an XPRIZE grant award and a US patent. Founder Tom Wither noted the team will compete against major corporations and research institutes. Archimedes-Desal has established a GoFundMe campaign to bridge a funding gap. Supporters will receive invitations to a post-competition award ceremony if the team wins prizes ranging from $5 million to $40 million. The working full-scale demonstration is currently being assembled in Royal Oak.

Acting AG says he's still 'learning' about Alaska privacy rights after assisting in release of voter rolls. Lawmakers question attorney general's commitment to Alaskans in first of several confirmation hearings. Published: Apr. 30, 2026 at 11:21 PM PDT JUNEAU, Alaska (KTUU) - Senators on the State Affairs Committee scrutinized the governor's pick for attorney general, Stephen Cox, Thursday, questioning his commitment to the state on a number of issues - including Alaskans' right to privacy. Who is Stephen Cox? Cox was appointed as the Attorney General in August of last year, making him the acting Attorney General until confirmed by the legislature. "Stephen Cox brings a wealth of experience to the Attorney General's office, and I am confident in his ability to serve Alaskans well," Dunleavy said in a release announcing the appointment. Cox previously served in the Trump administration as a senior U.S. Justice Department official, a U.S. attorney and a lawyer, according to the release. Since his appointment, Cox has filed numerous lawsuits, including suing GoFundMe and PayPal, accusing those and four other companies of creating online donation pages for nonprofits without the organizations' consent, has been involved with the governor's drug interception efforts and has pushed a 'Quality of Life' initiative. "Especially in Anchorage, when I was meeting with folks here, the elephant in the room was the crime situation here in Anchorage," Cox told Alaska's News Source in March. "And I think a lot of it is sort of low-level offenses. We have a big retail theft problem with all of our stores." In the hearing, Cox said under his leadership, the Department of Law's priorities focused on sexual assault, domestic violence, stopping the flow of fentanyl through the state and helping "unlock Alaska's potential." "I've spent time working on those channels, leveraging relationships, understanding how those agencies operate and helping position Alaska to move projects forward under existing law," he told the committee. "It's not always visible work, but it matters." His months-long tenure as the state's top prosecutor has not been without controversy. Voter roll release. Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom, R-Alaska, announced in December that the state had released its complete voter rolls to the Department of Justice, a move sparking fierce opposition and questions on its constitutionality. The information released includes the registrant's full name, date of birth, residential address, his or her state driver's license number or the last four digits of the registrant's social security number. In a March letter, the Alaska Beacon reports, Cox defended Dahlstrom's decision to release the voter rolls to the federal government. Cox and Dahlstrom have both argued the release was legal and constitutional, though lawmakers in both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees weren't so sure. That scrutiny carried over into Cox's hearing and dominated much of the discussion, where he told lawmakers he was involved in the decision to release the voter rolls to the federal government. "I did advise the Lieutenant Governor and the Division of Elections that we had been threatened with a lawsuit [if the state did not provide the voter rolls to the federal government], but I do not believe that it was illegal to pass along that information [from the voter rolls]," Cox said. Opponents to the decision say the administration's decision to release the voter rolls was unconstitutional due to Alaska's right to privacy. That rationale is the basis behind the ACLU's lawsuit against the state over just this issue. "Protecting voters' confidential information is a non-partisan issue," Marianne Mills, the Co-President for the League of Women Voters of Alaska said in an Apr. 22 press release. "Alaskan voters must be able to trust that the agency tasked with administering our statewide elections is doing everything in its power to protect Alaskans' privacy and lawful right to vote." When asked about the privacy issue, Cox said he was still "learning" about the law. "[On] the right to the privacy, I will concede, I am learning about the right to privacy, and the legislature has far better expertise on the right to privacy." Despite his attempts at learning the constitution's provisions of privacy, the decision was ultimately made to release the voter rolls, which he defended. Sen. Scott Kawasaki, D-Fairbanks, questioned his thinking. "When the U.S. does something, we tend to first take a pause and look and see if it's something that Alaskans want to do," he asked. "Why was that not your first thought is that Alaskans [have] a constitutional right to privacy?" Cox called it a "fair question," but said the state legislature has to "implement the right to privacy" and "the law department's position is that that statute is a valid statute and that it is not unconstitutional." Nikiski Republican Jesse Bjorkman raised another crucial detail, saying the state could legally give that confidential information if the federal government had a "lawful purpose." Cox said the "lawful purpose" was a deal (a memorandum of understanding), the state signed with the federal government to release the information. "I cannot pretend to be an expert on those laws but it's the position of the Department of Law that those were lawful government purposes set forth in the MOU." Bjorkman didn't buy it. "If it is incumbent on and a prerequisite for the release of voter information to be used for a lawful purpose, and you have not identified what the lawful purpose is that the Department of Justice will use the voter data for, I'm concerned that the release of that data, because the purpose has not been solidly identified, does not exist," he said. "That's a concern that I think a lot of people have." When asked if Cox could redo his decisions, he said, "I think I would still handle the situation the same way." Commitment to same-sex marriage, abortions. When Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage, asked Cox if the state would defend the right to same-sex marriages and a woman's right to an abortion, the attorney general designee did not directly answer. "I want to be very careful about answering hypotheticals," Cox said when asked if he would protect a woman's right to an abortion. Cox said he is "not an expert in that statute," but said he agreed with how the state supreme court identifies the right to privacy and its application to abortion. "You're saying that if there were binding law, you would not seek to overturn it?" Wielechowski asked. "I don't have any plans to ask the Alaska Supreme Court to revisit its earlier cases," he responded. "That is not something that I have even broached with the governor." However, Wielechowski noted later in the hearing that Cox has made efforts to change binding law at the federal level. "In any of the 110 amicus briefs you've signed on, have you sought to overturn binding Supreme Court law?" Wielechowski asked. An amicus brief is a legal opinion sent to the Supreme Court from stakeholders or experts on cases they are not a party to. "Senator, I would have to- I expect the answer is probably yes, but nothing is coming to my head right now." On same-sex marriages, lawmakers received a similar answer: not at the moment. "Do you believe that same-sex marriages should be recognized in the state of Alaska," Wielechowski asked. "We have no plans to litigate on any kind of undoing of same-sex marriages, but that is a big question, [and] I find it a little bit vague," Cox replied. "I also don't want to... commit to something that later in the year you might say, 'well, this is adjacent to that issue.'" What's next? Cox has another appointment hearing in the House before the legislature will convene for a joint session. Cox needs a simple majority to be confirmed. The Senate Judiciary committee is scheduled to hear testimony from him Friday at 1:30 p.m. A joint session vote is expected within days, the Senate Majority Caucus said in a Wednesday statement. Sen. Cathy Tilton, R-Wasilla and the only minority Republican presence on the committee, was present at the beginning of the hearing but left before Cox began his testimony. Alaska's News Source reached out to the minority caucus for comment. As of publication, comment has not been returned. See a spelling or grammar error? Report it to [email protected]