A contractor says they have unpaid invoices of over 2,000 dollars for completed work on the old platform and were locked out of it before being paid. They now have access only to the new platform, which shows none of their past work or invoices, and several approaches to support brought no resolution. The platform replied that someone would reach out, the complainant answered that no one had, and the platform later said it had emailed the complainant.

A contractor recruited in February 2024 says that after more than 14 months they have not been fully paid for 82 hours of work plus mission bonuses, which they put at 2,506.52 dollars. They say they received 866.90 dollars for the hours and 345 dollars in bonuses, paid through a payment wallet, and they attach screenshots to support the claim. BBB lists the complaint as Unanswered by the business.

An independent contractor says they are owed 3,240 dollars for 18 tasks at 180 dollars each. They say they were removed from all projects of that type on 7 May 2026 after the project was paused, and received no reply to 12 quality questions. BBB lists the complaint as Unanswered by the business.

A contractor says they passed their language and generalist assessments and logged about 4 hours of work, then were removed from the project under an automated claim of not meeting quality criteria, with no feedback or warning. They say they have not been paid for those 4 hours and ask for full compensation. BBB lists the complaint as Unanswered by the business.

A worker says a data annotation platform suspended his account days after a time-reporting mistake that support had told him was not a problem. He says over 1000 dollars of earned pay could not be withdrawn, representing 40 to 50 hours of work. Months of emails to the platform and attempts to contact authorities produced no response.

A contractor says they are owed 2,103.13 dollars for completed work but cannot reach their payment account because the platform has not updated the phone number used to verify their identity. They were told more than two months earlier that the update was in progress, and report several tickets and emails with minimal or no action. The platform replied on 5 May that someone would reach out.

A contractor says they have not received 2,440.15 dollars for completed work because a name spelling error blocked their tax identity verification and the platform has not reopened the tax compliance portal after correcting it. They say this has lasted over six months and that numerous tickets and escalation requests drew little or no response. The platform replied on 5 May that someone would reach out.

A contractor hired through a freelance marketplace says the platform sent several emails stating a 10,000 dollar payment had been released to their account, and that it then refused to pay for the work they did on that basis. They say neither company responds, they cannot contact the platform directly, and the marketplace says it does not control payments. They report holding emails and screenshots and ask for the payment or a written explanation. BBB lists the complaint as Unanswered by the business.

A contractor says they were not paid for Hubstaff-tracked hours from the first two weeks of March, about 160 hours at 41 dollars an hour, after their agreement ended on 25 April. They say they lost support access during the platform's migration to another platform. BBB lists the complaint as Unanswered by the business.

A contractor says they worked for the platform from April to August 2024 and have not received the corresponding payment. They ask for a link to connect a new payout account. The platform replied that its finance team would reach out with details. The amount is not stated.

A contractor says they worked from May to September 2024 and have not been paid, that their efforts to contact the platform failed, and that it is not answering emails. They ask for a link to connect a payout account so the invoice can be paid. The platform replied on 14 April that someone would reach out. The amount is not stated.

A contractor reported being unpaid for their most recent month of work. The contractor attempted to reach the platform's US and Australian offices, finding no working contact numbers and receiving no response. The Better Business Bureau (BBB) lists the complaint as unanswered by the business. The exact amount unpaid was not specified.

A contractor says they are owed 223.16 dollars that the platform states it processed on 24 June 2026 to a bank account number the contractor had entered with two digits transposed. They first contacted support on 30 June, were told trace information would arrive within 12 weeks, and say that period passed with no trace number and their original ticket closed unresolved. They ask for the trace result or a reissued payment to the corrected account. BBB lists the complaint as Unanswered by the business.

A contractor says their account was closed or flagged and that pending earnings for approved work were not paid. They ask for an explanation and payment. The amount is not stated. BBB lists the complaint as Unanswered by the business.

A contractor says they worked from July to August 2024 and are owed about 1,150 dollars, but the platform denied their request to relink a new payout account and instead terminated their account. They say their account information was later erased, their messages to support were ignored, and they ask for reactivation and payment. The platform replied the same day that it would have someone reach out.

A contributor says they earned 75 dollars in one night on an audio recording task, and the next day an automated system permanently deactivated their account and withheld the earnings under a vague guideline claim. They say they have a passing quality score and a screen recording of the work, and demand release of the 75 dollars. BBB lists the complaint as Unanswered by the business.

A contributor says his account was deactivated as inactive after the platform migrated its support system. He says he completed project tasks from 26 February to 26 March 2026, and now cannot access his dashboard, link his payment wallet or withdraw his earnings, which support his family.

A contributor says they were promised a 400 dollar incentive for finishing a dataset by a new deadline but received only the 300 dollar base pay. They say they have screenshots showing they are entitled to it and that several support tickets drew no response. The platform replied on 5 March that it apologized for the confusion and had escalated the matter to its support team.

A contributor says they spent over six months on the platform, completing large amounts of unpaid onboarding tasks, fulfilled all requirements and work, and were never paid. They say the platform then found an issue with their account and blocked it, and support did nothing to help them receive their money.

A contributor says that after about 35 hours on a language project the platform removed them without explanation, citing guidelines violations. They say they followed the guidelines and the platform is holding 525 dollars of their pay. BBB lists the complaint as Unanswered by the business.

A contributor says they worked for 11 months, from 1 July 2023 to 30 May 2024, about 963 hours 40 minutes at 10 dollars an hour, and were never paid because of a problem with their initial payment method, leaving 9,639.74 dollars owed. They say multiple messages to support went unanswered and the platform refused to pay. The platform replied that someone would be in touch, the complainant rejected that on 16 April because no one had contacted them, and on 21 April the platform said it had reached out about the steps required before payment.

A contributor says a project was paused with no reason after about 35 hours of weekend work, and that the payment has not arrived. They say support repeatedly said it would contact the project lead without any follow-up. BBB lists the complaint as Unanswered by the business.

A contributor says they worked with the platform from April to August 2024 and have not received payment for their contributions. They ask for a new link to connect an updated payout account. The platform replied the same day that someone would be in touch. The amount is not stated.

A contributor says they worked for the platform from April to July 2024 and have not received the corresponding payment. They ask for a link to connect a new payout account. The platform replied the same day that someone would reach out. The amount is not stated.

A contributor says they worked for the platform from January to May 2024 and have not received the corresponding payment. They ask for a link to connect a new payout account. The platform replied the same day that someone would be in touch. The amount is not stated.

A contributor says they worked for the platform between May and August 2024 and have not received payment for that period. They ask for a link to connect their new payout account. The platform replied on 28 April that someone from its finance team would reach out. The amount is not stated.

A contributor says they worked on a project from 5 April, submitted time late, and received no payment for it, while being paid for a different project they say they were told they did not qualify for. The platform replied that the account must be reviewed, and the complainant hoped to be paid. The amount is not stated.

A contributor says they completed a video data collection project and were not paid for months, and that their account was disabled after they escalated the overdue payment. In an update they say they have since received 90 percent of the payment, with the remaining 10 percent still under review.

A contributor says they worked on a project from 1 June to 31 August 2024 at 10 dollars an hour, 229 hours 50 minutes in total, and that none of their invoices have been processed or paid, amounting to 2,298.35 dollars. They attach a screenshot of the unpaid invoice dashboard. The platform replied that someone would reach out, the complainant asked for an update, and the platform later said its team had reached out on 13 and 14 May 2025.

A contributor says they worked for the platform between April and August 2024 and have not received payment for that period. They ask the platform to provide a link to connect a new payout account. The platform replied the same day that it would ask a team member to reach out. The amount is not stated.

A contributor says they worked on several projects last year and still have unpaid earnings. They say the platform told them there was a problem with their payout account, which has since been resolved, but they can no longer log in to submit their invoices. The platform replied the same day that someone would be in touch. The amount is not stated.

A contributor says they submitted a dataset for a collection project and were told a 700 dollar payment had been sent. They say it never arrived, that the platform held the funds after discontinuing their account, and that they had no reply since 10 May 2024. BBB lists the complaint as Unanswered by the business.

A contributor says their account was closed while about 15 dollars was pending in it and about 300 dollars from project work was waiting to be processed. They say they emailed repeatedly from 5 July with no response and got no satisfactory explanation. The platform replied publicly, pointing them to its account review team.

A contributor says that after working on a project, their account was terminated near the payment period, and they were left chasing payment between a project manager and payment support who ignored emails. The platform replied publicly that completed and approved work is owed regardless of account status and asked for a ticket reference.

The Danish Data Protection Authority (Datatilsynet) issued a formal reprimand to Copenhagen Municipality (Københavns Kommune) regarding its use of the school communication platform Aula. The regulator determined that the municipality failed to conduct a compliant data protection impact assessment and did not fully demonstrate that appropriate security measures were implemented to mitigate risks such as unauthorized access. The investigation followed public reports that the municipality had been utilizing the platform's secure file-sharing module to store sensitive child welfare and health records without performing the necessary risk assessments.

A specific group of course participants who subscribed to paid training programs offered by a trading academy incurred substantial financial losses after being induced to execute trades based on unregistered investment advice. The academy's director used live market trading data, price volume charts, and paid WhatsApp groups to provide direct stock recommendations under the guise of stock market education while selectively displaying only profitable trades. Additionally, some participants were solicited by the academy's staff to take out loans to pay for high course fees, which ranged up to INR 6,75,000.

A crowd worker spent over a year working up to 15 hours daily on a tasking platform. Despite the extensive and intense labor, they received less than $100 in total compensation for the entire year.

A crowd worker spent six days working 12 to 18 hours daily on a tasking platform under the guidance of an instructor. After submitting the tasks, the platform flagged 15 errors and did not pay him for his work, resulting in a total loss of his time and effort.

A 26-year-old male worker received only $12 for working on a project over three workdays on an online data annotation platform. He had expected to earn $50 for his labor but received significantly less due to the platform's compensation practices.

A female college student in Odisha, India, was harassed by a family acquaintance after a marriage proposal was rejected. The perpetrator sent obscene and threatening messages to her father's mobile phone, posted defamatory pamphlets on her college and hostel walls, and created a fake Facebook account in her name to publish morphed nude photographs of her. As a result of this harassment, the victim suffered severe mental shock and trauma, was evicted from her hostel, and was forced to change colleges to escape the abuse. This incident has been included because the harassment directly affected the victim's ability to continue her education, resulting in her removal from hostel accommodation and transfer to another college.

A WhatsApp group used by high school students reportedly became a venue for cyberbullying and exposure to sexual content. Participants allegedly mocked and body-shamed a 16-year-old girl after she shared a photograph of herself, and adult men who had joined the group distributed sexually explicit videos that were viewed by underage students. The account was later shared by an adult reflecting on the broader risks faced by children in online spaces.

A group of nine minor girl students and five female teachers at a school in Delhi were targeted by an online stalker. The stalker accessed the school's online classes and WhatsApp groups without authorization, made harassing calls and messages from fake international numbers, and circulated morphed nude and semi-nude photos of the students on Instagram.

The Danish Data Protection Authority (Datatilsynet) issued formal reprimands and enforcement orders to five Danish municipalities—Lolland, Esbjerg, Hillerød, Randers, and Frederikshavn—following an audit of their security practices on the school communication platform AULA. The regulator found that the municipalities failed to document adequate risk assessments and did not meet the minimum requirements for Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs). As a consequence, the municipalities received formal criticism, and two were ordered to complete compliant DPIAs within three months.

A Danish municipality deployed Google Chromebooks and G Suite for Education in its municipal schools without conducting required risk assessments or ensuring proper privacy configurations. Consequently, the personal data of pupils was processed in violation of the GDPR, exposing them to risks of unauthorized data profiling and sharing. The Danish Data Protection Authority issued a serious criticism against the municipality and ordered it to bring its data processing practices into compliance.

The Danish Data Protection Authority (Datatilsynet) upheld a ban prohibiting a municipality in Denmark from processing pupil and teacher personal data using Google Workspace and Chromebooks due to high privacy risks. The regulator determined that the municipality had failed to adequately analyze and mitigate data transfer and security risks, particularly concerning potential unauthorized data processing by the technology provider. As a consequence of the ban, teachers and pupils at municipal schools were blocked from using their primary digital teaching and learning tools at the start of the 2022/2023 school year, severely disrupting planned educational activities.

A 36-year-old male data annotation worker accumulated over $150 in payments for completed work on an online data annotation platform. He was suddenly booted from the platform and lost access to his account, resulting in his earned wages being permanently withheld.

On January 26, 2019, an unauthorized attacker exploited a SQL injection vulnerability in the website of a school in Spain. The attacker gained unauthorized access to the website's user database and compromised the personal details of 1,555 registered extranet users, including parents and staff members. The exposed personal data included names, national ID (DNI) numbers, cooperative member numbers, email addresses, and encrypted passwords.

Public school students in a municipality in Denmark had their personal information, including full names, schools, and grades, publicly exposed on YouTube and Gmail due to the municipality's misconfiguration of school-issued Chromebooks and G Suite for Education accounts. In several cases, the real names of students with legally protected identities were exposed instead of anonymous aliases. Additionally, the municipality taped login credentials directly onto some students' laptops, compromising account security and confidentiality.

K-12 students filed a class-action lawsuit against educational software provider Renaissance Learning, Inc. The lawsuit alleges that the company's platforms, including Star Assessments and Nearpod, generated, collected, used, and shared students' personal and behavioral data without consent. This unauthorized collection and tracking allegedly violated federal and state wiretapping and privacy laws, resulting in an unlawful invasion of the students' privacy.

A private school conducted a facial recognition trial resulting in a formal investigation by the national data protection authority.