No, not every whistleblowing case incurs costs. But some do. Whistleblowing costs fall into several categories: Legal expenses, time/opportunity costs incl. lower annual income, and other costs, e.g. relating to digital security, relocation, or health expenditures. Legal expenses tend to account for the largest share of costs, but exact financial burden varies dramatically depending on case type, whether you face retaliation, and how long proceedings last.

To understand how likely your case is to incur cost and whether you qualify for financial or pro-bono support, reach out to the organizations listed above for a confidential consultation.

Low-cost scenarios:

• In general: The more clear-cut your case, the lower the costs will be.
• For example, clear False Claims Act or SEC/CFTC cases will allow you to work with contingency attorneys: Attorneys receive 15-30% of any government recovery as their fee (higher percentage if government declines to intervene). Under False Claims Act fee-shifting provisions, defendants (companies) also pay statutory attorney fees, ensuring attorneys are compensated even if recovery is modest.
• Cases where you’re not facing retaliation due to successfully preserving your anonymity or regulators successfully maintain your confidentiality/ quickly intervene in case of retaliation (e.g. through injunctive relief). Regulator or because your employer decides not to retaliate for other reasons.

High-cost scenarios:

• In general: The more complex the case and the higher the likelihood of your identity being uncovered, the higher the potential cost. Retaliation cases, especially those spanning a long period of time, can involve legal fees and costs beyond those, including lost income (averaging 7-10% lower annually), relocation expenses, and mental health support.

• Retaliation cases: Legal fees commonly range from $20,000-$200,000 + Financial, Health and Other Costs of Whistleblowing Cited, Even When Settling.
• Multi-year proceedings, investigations, and escalations.
• Need for security, relocation, or extensive mental health support.

Potential financial upside:

• Some whistleblowers may qualify for financial rewards for their whistleblowing if their report leads to a successful enforcement.

• Rewards range from 10-30% of government recovery depending on the program (SEC, CFTC, IRS, FCA) Whistleblower Rewards: How They Get Paid | Phillips & Cohen.

• FCA whistleblowers can expect to receive approximately $140,000 on average How Costly is Whistleblowing? | Compliance and Enforcement.

Yes, legal counsel is strongly recommended for virtually all whistleblowing situations, even if you’re “just exploring” your options or not sure if you even have a case. Here’s why:

Evaluate your situation safely:

• Legal counsel helps you understand your rights, potential costs, and the safest disclosure pathways.

• Legal counsel can bring in (technical) experts on your specific concern under client-attorney privilege, protecting their communications from future subpoenas or attempts by adversarial lawyers to uncover communications via e.g. subpoenas.

• Escalating concerns internally might already expose you to retaliation risk or action by your employer may already be violating your whistleblower rights — receiving counsel as early as possible ensures you take the right steps from the start.

Protection and anonymity:

• An attorney’s job is to protect your interests and maintain your anonymity and/or confidentiality when dealing with regulatory agencies, which agency personnel cannot guarantee in the same way.
• Legal counsel ensures your identity is protected throughout the process, particularly when blowing the whistle on powerful entities.
• All the organizations listed above provide client-attorney privilege.

Maximizing effectiveness:

• Attorneys help ensure you provide information in the required format and meet qualification requirements for any potential awards or protections.
• Whistleblower cases, especially qui tam lawsuits, are typically complex and require extensive experience and knowledge.

When to seek counsel: The backers of the defence funds featured on this page are all passionate about the risks from AI and provide pro-bono legal counsel directly as well as help with connections to experienced attorneys.

Reach out before taking any action—even an initial consultation can prevent costly mistakes and ensure you’re protected from the start.

Each case will be evaluated case-by-case – simply reach out to any of the organizations above. All organizations will support individuals blowing the whistle in the public interest.

Commonly covered expenses:

Legal support:

• Attorney fees and legal representation.
• Court fees and tribunal costs.
• Investigation expenses.
• Pre- and post-disclosure legal advice.
• Defense against retaliation claims.

Beyond legal:

• Mental health support.

• Security/protection costs.

• Living expenses during proceedings.

• Media/PR training.

• Career transition support.

• Temporary relocation.

The organizations can fund both already-incurred as well as to-be-incurred expenses.

Typically not covered:

• Long-term living expenses (TSN notes this limitation).

• Expenses unrelated to the whistleblowing case.

Important nuances regarding the funds above:

• LASST focuses specifically on legal expenses and cases in AI safety given their significant expertise, network, and expert and cannot fund living expenses, security costs, mental health support, or career transition help.

• Geographic restrictions: LASST covers US-based legal issues; Psst.org and TSN are global.

The short answer: It depends on whether you already have legal counsel.

If you DON’T have legal counsel yet: You can approach defence funds directly as all three major funds (LASST, Psst.org, and TSN) also provide pro-bono legal counsel directly or will do their utmost to connect you with legal counsel as part of their services.

If you ALREADY have legal counsel: Have your attorney contact the defence funds on your behalf. This allows your attorney to:

• Discuss funding options before making initial contact between you/ the fund as required.
• Understand what support is available.
• Protect attorney-client privilege throughout the process.
• Navigate applications more effectively.

Best practice approach:

1. Schedule an (anonymous) consultation with one of the organizations.

2. Get pro bono legal advice first to understand your situation and rights.

3. Then explore defense fund support with your counsel’s guidance for any costs the case may incur.

Why this order matters: Legal counsel can help you navigate the system, protect your interests, and ensure you’re pursuing the right disclosure channels—potentially saving you from costly mistakes or inadequate protection.

You are free to choose your approach. We generally recommend approaching one organization first — here’s why:

1. It is generally wise to not distribute knowledge of your case too widely.

2. If your case is not a perfect fit for your chosen organization, they will inform you of this and, given your consent, will refer you to other organizations.

3. If an organization can only fund your case partially, they might collaborate to fulfil your financial support needs: For example, LASST might cover legal expenses while another fund helps with mental health support or living expenses. It is easier to coordinate this via a single point of contact, rather than you communicating with multiple organizations in parallel.

If your situation is time critical, you may want to approach multiple organizations in parallel. In those cases, please inform the organization of this during your intake call, which they will schedule with you.

Naturally, if you start the process with one organization and then change your mind, you are always free to reach out to another organization. However please be transparent about this to ensure there are no misunderstanding between organizations.

Yes—whistleblowing has proven to be one of the most effective tools for detecting and preventing wrongdoing. The evidence is compelling:

Detection effectiveness: A 2007 PricewaterhouseCoopers study found that whistleblowers detected 43% of fraudulent activities at private corporations, compared to only 19% detected by professional auditors. Survey executives estimated that whistleblowers saved shareholders billions of dollars. In fiscal year 2024, the Department of Justice recovered over $2.9 billion in False Claims Act cases, largely due to whistleblowers.

Specific to tech whistleblowing: Recent tech whistleblower actions have already created significant impact:

• Daniel Kokotajlo’s public disclosure, the associated righttowarn.ai letter (signed by OpenAI and Google Deepmind employees) and SEC complaint alleging illegal NDAs prompted a cancellation of prohibitive non-disparagement agreement by OpenAI as well as Anthropic. It also led five senators to demand information from CEO Sam Altman about the company’s AI safety efforts, and fuelled conversation around whistleblower rights in AI. This has led to state and proposed federal AI whistleblower protections. Daniel now runs the AI Futures Project. William Saunders, another former OpenAI insider not only signed the righttowarn.ai letter but also testified in the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary on the need for effective frontier AI oversight. He now works at Anthropic.

• Microsoft engineer Shane Jones exposed critical safety vulnerabilities in Copilot Designer’s AI image generator that produced harmful content from benign prompts. This led to public awareness, media coverage, regulatory attention from the FTC and Senate, as well as eventual implementation of safety improvements including blocked prompts and enhanced filters. This demonstrates how internal whistleblowing can drive accountability and safer AI deployment even when companies initially resist addressing concerns. Shane still works at Microsoft, and does independent research.

• META data scientist Frances Haugen exposed tens of thousands of internal documents revealing the company knowingly prioritized profits over user safety—particularly regarding Instagram’s harmful effects on teenage girls’ mental health and the platform’s role in spreading misinformation and political division. This triggered congressional hearings, SEC complaints, a 5% stock drop, global regulatory momentum including the EU’s Digital Services Act, and forcing META to pause development of Instagram Kids while spurring worldwide debate about social media regulation and algorithmic transparency. She has since founded “Beyond the Screen”, a non-profit organization working to promote the growth of the ecosystem of accountability for Social Platforms.

• OpenAI researcher Suchir Balaji provided evidence on how ChatGPT’s training violated U.S. copyright laws by illegally using copyrighted content from authors, journalists, and businesses, arguing in an October 2024 New York Times interview and detailed analysis that the practice failed fair use standards and threatened the internet ecosystem. November 2024, he was tragically found dead at age 26 before he could testify as a witness in major copyright lawsuits against OpenAI, with his death sparking calls for stronger AI whistleblower protections and his family demanding an FBI investigation into the circumstances.

Systemic impact: Whistleblowing has exposed major scandals including industry-scale tax avoidance (LuxLeaks, Panama Papers) and money laundering (Danske Bank scandal), saving millions in public funds and preventing disasters for health and the environment.

The reality about impact: While individual outcomes vary, whistleblowing creates change through:

• Exposing wrongdoing that would otherwise remain hidden.

• Spurring investigations and enforcement actions.

• Driving policy reforms and regulatory changes.

• Setting legal precedents that benefit others.

• Creating public awareness that pressures companies to change.

For AI specifically: Given the rapidly evolving nature of AI technology and limited regulatory oversight, insiders are among the few people who can hold AI companies accountable to the public. Your voice matters—the cases that are emerging now are shaping how AI will be regulated and developed for years to come.