Pall, a verified Instagram influencer with a sizable social-media following, has spent much of August advocating for greater protections for seals and sea lions along La Jolla's coastline. His Change.org petition originally called for permanently closing public access to the Children's Pool beach and has since expanded to advocate closing or substantially restricting access to La Jolla Cove, where city leaders are simultaneously trying to protect sea lions while preserving public recreational access.
The petition stood at nearly 35,000 verified signatures Friday, according to Change.org, after Pall repeatedly encouraged followers to sign, share the campaign, contact elected officials and attend a packed August 24 meeting of the La Jolla Parks & Beaches board. Pall has also invoked the petition's rapidly growing signature count in appeals to local decision-makers as evidence supporting greater restrictions at the Cove.
Pall is not simply using Change.org as a free platform to collect those signatures. The petition itself contains a disclosure identifying him as a "Change Ambassador" who "receives compensation in connection with this petition."
Change.org has now directly confirmed that relationship to SanDiegoVille.
"Barrett Pall is a compensated Change.org Ambassador," Jessica Siegel, Change.org's Head of Corporate Communications, wrote in an August 31 email.
The arrangement is part of Change.org's Ambassador initiative, a paid creator program through which people with substantial audiences receive compensation and assistance launching and promoting petitions.
Exactly how much Pall receives remains confidential, but Change.org has now provided additional information about how its Ambassador compensation system works after initially disputing SanDiegoVille's characterization of the program.
Change.org initially told SanDiegoVille that it does not disclose compensation details for individual Ambassadors and categorically stated that Ambassadors are not compensated according to petition signatures.
"Change.org Ambassadors are not paid per signature," Siegel wrote. "Signatures represent real, verified people who chose to add their names to causes they care about."
The statement presented an unusual discrepancy with Change.org's publicly available Ambassador materials. The company's current Ambassador webpage states that participants can receive a guaranteed advance based on audience size "plus $0.30–$0.50 for every signature your petition collects," while elsewhere advertising "monthly revenue paid out per signature" and "$0.30–$0.50 per signature, paid monthly as your petition grows."
After SanDiegoVille asked Change.org to reconcile those statements, Siegel provided a more nuanced explanation on September 1.
According to Change.org, users can pay to promote petitions they have signed through advertisements shown to other Change.org visitors. Those promotions can generate additional signatures, and the resulting revenue is shared with Ambassadors.
"These promotions typically generate $0.30–$0.50 in revenue per signature, and our Ambassadors receive a portion of this amount," Siegel told SanDiegoVille. "Actual results may vary and are not guaranteed."
The latest explanation appears to draw a distinction between paying an Ambassador a fixed amount directly for each signature and paying the Ambassador a share of revenue that Change.org itself says is generated on a per-signature basis.
It also clarifies an important point that was not apparent from Change.org's initial response: the publicly advertised $0.30–$0.50 figure does not necessarily represent the amount an Ambassador personally receives for each signature. Rather, Change.org now says that amount represents revenue generated through user-funded promotion, with the Ambassador receiving an unspecified portion.
Change.org has not disclosed what portion Pall receives, how his individual agreement calculates that share, whether he receives other performance-based compensation or how much he has earned in connection with the La Jolla petition.
Change.org directed SanDiegoVille to its "current pages" for the Ambassador Program Overview and Program Terms while requesting corrections to the original article. Those same pages continue to describe a guaranteed advance, performance-based compensation and revenue associated with petition signatures, including the statement that Ambassadors receive "monthly revenue paid out per signature."
Change.org initially told SanDiegoVille that it does not disclose compensation details for individual Ambassadors and categorically stated that Ambassadors are not compensated according to petition signatures.
"Change.org Ambassadors are not paid per signature," Siegel wrote. "Signatures represent real, verified people who chose to add their names to causes they care about."
The statement presented an unusual discrepancy with Change.org's publicly available Ambassador materials. The company's current Ambassador webpage states that participants can receive a guaranteed advance based on audience size "plus $0.30–$0.50 for every signature your petition collects," while elsewhere advertising "monthly revenue paid out per signature" and "$0.30–$0.50 per signature, paid monthly as your petition grows."
After SanDiegoVille asked Change.org to reconcile those statements, Siegel provided a more nuanced explanation on September 1.
According to Change.org, users can pay to promote petitions they have signed through advertisements shown to other Change.org visitors. Those promotions can generate additional signatures, and the resulting revenue is shared with Ambassadors.
"These promotions typically generate $0.30–$0.50 in revenue per signature, and our Ambassadors receive a portion of this amount," Siegel told SanDiegoVille. "Actual results may vary and are not guaranteed."
The latest explanation appears to draw a distinction between paying an Ambassador a fixed amount directly for each signature and paying the Ambassador a share of revenue that Change.org itself says is generated on a per-signature basis.
It also clarifies an important point that was not apparent from Change.org's initial response: the publicly advertised $0.30–$0.50 figure does not necessarily represent the amount an Ambassador personally receives for each signature. Rather, Change.org now says that amount represents revenue generated through user-funded promotion, with the Ambassador receiving an unspecified portion.
Change.org has not disclosed what portion Pall receives, how his individual agreement calculates that share, whether he receives other performance-based compensation or how much he has earned in connection with the La Jolla petition.
Change.org directed SanDiegoVille to its "current pages" for the Ambassador Program Overview and Program Terms while requesting corrections to the original article. Those same pages continue to describe a guaranteed advance, performance-based compensation and revenue associated with petition signatures, including the statement that Ambassadors receive "monthly revenue paid out per signature."
SanDiegoVille has removed references suggesting that Pall personally receives the publicly advertised $0.30–$0.50 for every signature, as well as an earlier hypothetical calculation of what his petition might generate under that figure.
Without Pall's individual agreement, SanDiegoVille cannot determine his personal payment rate or total earnings. Change.org's latest explanation does establish, however, that its Ambassador compensation model includes revenue generated on a per-signature basis through paid petition promotion and that Ambassadors receive a portion of that revenue.
Pall has not concealed the existence of sponsorship, an important distinction. SanDiegoVille reviewed multiple Instagram posts Pall published about La Jolla's seals and sea lions during August and found that several expressly describe his Change.org campaign as "#sponsored," although there were no specific details concerning the compensation arrangement.
In an August 6 post, Pall wrote that he was "so grateful that CHANGE.ORG recognizes the power of my voice, and is teaming up with me to run a #sponsored petition." The post called for closing the Children's Pool and La Jolla Cove and urged followers to join him at an upcoming La Jolla Parks & Beaches meeting.
An August 13 post contained another disclosure. After announcing that approximately 13,000 people had signed the petition, Pall thanked Change.org "for working with me to make this a #sponsored and amplified petition."
A third post published as the campaign surpassed 22,000 signatures again told followers that Change.org was "teaming up with me to run a #sponsored petition." Pall used that post to argue there was "NO reason" for the Children's Pool or La Jolla Cove to remain open to the general public.
Those disclosures are significant and distinguish Pall's campaign from a situation in which an influencer completely concealed the existence of a commercial relationship. Change.org says its Ambassador campaigns contain disclosures identifying the paid relationship, and Siegel told SanDiegoVille that "all Change.org Ambassador assets are monitored for compliance with FTC guidelines."
The more specific question is what followers understand that sponsorship to mean. None of the visible disclosures reviewed by SanDiegoVille explains Pall's particular compensation arrangement, which Change.org says it will not disclose.
Private messages obtained by SanDiegoVille provide additional insight into Pall's financial relationship with Change.org and how he has responded to questions about it. In apparent screenshots of the exchanges, Pall acknowledges being sponsored by Change.org and says he had sought a partnership with the company for months, while later rejecting allegations of a conflict of interest and threatening possible legal action against a critic he accused of spreading false information.
The messages were provided by a SanDiegoVille follower who requested anonymity. SanDiegoVille reviewed screenshots of the exchanges but is not identifying the follower because that person expressed concern about becoming publicly involved in the increasingly contentious La Jolla dispute.
On August 25, the follower asked Pall directly whether he had disclosed that he was being paid in connection with the petition.
"Have you disclosed that you're getting paid for your petition? I didn't see that anywhere in your posts and I think it's an important detail to share," the follower wrote.
Pall responded that his video captions disclosed Change.org's sponsorship and said the relationship was not new.
"I have in my video caption that change.org sponsored me. This is a partnership that I've had since Jan. I asked them to sponsor me because I was going to talk about it and was hoping they would back me up," Pall wrote.
Pall then acknowledged that the sponsorship disclosure did not appear in one of his most recent captions.
"It's in all the captions except the last one as I am continuing this fight on my own without their backing," he wrote.
The follower subsequently raised a more specific concern regarding how Pall was compensated and whether his followers understood the financial relationship. The follower asked whether Pall intended to make a separate disclosure explaining the arrangement and whether he planned to donate any proceeds to organizations working with La Jolla wildlife.
Pall rejected the characterization.
"With that said, I'm not sure where you are getting this information from, but it is incorrect," Pall responded, according to the screenshots. He later wrote that what the follower had presented as "'payment' / 'conflict of interest' is fully incorrect."
Change.org's subsequent response establishes at least one element conclusively: Pall is being paid.
Change.org's September 1 response now establishes something further: its Ambassador program includes a revenue-sharing mechanism under which paid promotion typically generates $0.30–$0.50 in revenue for each resulting signature and Ambassadors receive a portion of that revenue. What remains unknown is Pall's individual share, his total compensation and the complete terms of his agreement.
The messages also show Pall defending the sincerity of his advocacy and saying his involvement extends beyond Change.org's sponsorship. He told the follower that he intended to continue advocating for the animals and said his most recent post was part of continuing the campaign without Change.org's backing.
There is nothing in the messages that establishes Pall does not genuinely care about protecting marine mammals, and being compensated for advocacy does not itself make someone's beliefs insincere or illegitimate. Political organizers, nonprofit employees, lobbyists, campaign consultants and professional advocates routinely receive compensation while working for causes and policies they genuinely support.
Pall's background also complicates any simplistic suggestion that his activism began with a paid Change.org petition. Before becoming involved in the La Jolla debate, the former model played a significant role in bringing allegations against former Abercrombie & Fitch CEO Mike Jeffries into public view, after speaking to a BBC journalist about his own experience more than a decade earlier.
Pall has said that when he was a 22-year-old aspiring model in 2011, he was recruited through a middleman and ultimately attended an event at Jeffries' Hamptons home where he alleged he was pressured into sexual activity. Years later, Pall's decision to tell BBC investigative journalist Rianna Croxford about the experience helped launch an investigation that uncovered allegations from numerous other men and eventually became the BBC's The Abercrombie Guys investigation.
The reporting took on considerably greater significance when federal prosecutors later charged Jeffries, his partner Matthew Smith and recruiter James Jacobson with operating an international sex-trafficking and prostitution enterprise. The criminal investigation was conducted independently by federal authorities, and Pall's disclosure should not be characterized as having caused the prosecution, but Croxford has publicly described her conversation with Pall as the starting point for the journalistic investigation that first exposed the broader allegations.
Pall has since remained involved in advocacy surrounding the modeling industry, including work with the Model Alliance and support for New York's Fashion Workers Act. That history does not resolve the separate transparency questions surrounding his current Change.org arrangement, but it provides relevant context: Pall's public advocacy and involvement with social causes substantially predate his campaign over La Jolla's seals and sea lions.
Federal Trade Commission guidance provides additional context. The FTC says influencers should disclose financial or other material relationships clearly and conspicuously and should not assume followers already know about a commercial relationship.
The FTC's updated Endorsement Guides define clear and conspicuous disclosure more specifically and caution that even a platform's built-in disclosure tool may not always be sufficient depending upon how an endorsement is presented. The agency has long identified payment as the type of material connection that can affect the weight or credibility consumers give an endorsement.
Whether Pall's particular posts legally qualify as endorsements governed by those rules, and whether his disclosures satisfy any applicable requirements, would depend upon the complete circumstances of each communication. SanDiegoVille is not asserting that Pall has violated FTC regulations.
One of Pall's most recent posts nevertheless became part of the disclosure dispute. Published as the petition approached 25,000 signatures, it told followers, "Please sign if you haven't already and share this petition," while announcing that Pall planned to present the petition at the La Jolla Parks & Beaches meeting. The post accumulated approximately half a million views.
Pall's private messages indicated that sponsorship language did not appear in one of his recent captions because he said he was continuing the campaign without Change.org's backing. A subsequent version of the post embedded in Pall's August 26 Substack displayed "#sponsored" in the Instagram caption.
The dispute over Pall's financial relationship has since become more contentious. On August 28, Pall posted an Instagram Story telling followers he was uncovering "a lot of 'conflict of interests'" involving supporters of the pinnipeds and people opposed to closing the beaches. He invited reporters to contact him because he had "some interesting details to share," while characterizing allegations circulating about him as "false accusations" and a "Classic desperate attempt @ at a smear campaign."
That same morning, in another private exchange supplied to SanDiegoVille, Pall received allegations concerning another person involved in the La Jolla debate. His response included a question about that person's funding.
"What I'm most curious if who is paying you?" Pall wrote.
The exchange later deteriorated further. Pall accused the follower of intentionally misrepresenting him and said he would end further communication.
"If you continue to spread false accusations about me, which I will see because I have a lot of people informing me of plenty about you and others involved my lawyers will be who you hear from next," Pall wrote.
The messages do not establish wrongdoing by Pall, nor do they resolve the legal sufficiency of his social-media disclosures. They do show that questions about his financial relationship with Change.org were raised directly with him before he publicly characterized criticism surrounding the campaign as an attempted smear.
Meanwhile, Pall's petition continues to grow, and its signature count has become an increasingly prominent component of his effort to influence San Diego policy.
In a recent update announcing that the campaign had reached approximately 33,000 signatures, Pall tagged Mayor Todd Gloria and City Council President Joe LaCava and accused them of not caring about the issue because they continue to oppose closing the beach. Pall urged followers to "keep calling both of their offices and sending emails," while his petition similarly calls upon local leaders to permanently close beach access and prioritize the coastline as habitat for seals and sea lions.
Change.org emphasized in its response that the petition's supporters should not be viewed differently because Pall is compensated.
"Nearly 35,000 people signed this petition and whatever the city ultimately decides about La Jolla Cove will be decided by local officials, public safety, wildlife protection, and community input," Siegel wrote.
The campaign is unfolding amid a legitimate and increasingly contentious debate over how San Diego should manage interactions between people and marine mammals at La Jolla Cove. The issue has become especially heated following repeated incidents of visitors approaching, crowding or harassing sea lions.
A particularly disturbing July video showed a young man approaching and harassing a sea lion near the Cove. Eighteen-year-old Tyler Muehl subsequently pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor violation of the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act.
Those incidents have intensified calls for stronger restrictions, but substantial disagreement remains over whether the appropriate response is enforcement against people who violate wildlife protections or restrictions affecting public access more broadly.
The Children's Pool also carries a nearly century-old history as a place specifically created for public recreation and safe ocean access. La Jolla philanthropist Ellen Browning Scripps funded construction of the massive curved breakwater, completed in 1931, to transform what had been a dangerous stretch of coastline affected by currents and undertow into a sheltered area where children could safely swim.
That recreational purpose was ultimately embedded in state law. When California transferred the tidelands to the City of San Diego in 1931, the Legislature required the property to be devoted to public park use, a "bathing pool for children," playground and recreational purposes. The legal framework was amended decades later to permit the city to also use the area as a marine mammal park, reflecting the dramatic transformation of Children's Pool after harbor seals increasingly began using its beach.
The history adds another dimension to the current closure debate. What is now internationally recognizable as a harbor seal gathering place was not originally constructed as wildlife habitat; the breakwater itself was a major human intervention in the natural coastline specifically intended to make the ocean more accessible and safer for people, particularly children. The modern dispute therefore pits two public purposes that emerged generations apart: preserving access to a recreational area deliberately created for swimmers and protecting the marine mammals that subsequently made the sheltered beach their home.
More than 100 people attended the August 24 La Jolla Parks & Beaches meeting on the issue, forcing organizers to accommodate a much larger crowd as supporters and opponents of access restrictions debated the future of the Cove.
The board ultimately endorsed a proposal considerably narrower than the complete closure Pall has advocated. Under the recommendation, La Jolla Cove would remain accessible to swimmers, snorkelers and divers during the June 1 through September 15 sea lion pupping season while general beach recreation and animal viewing from the sand would be prohibited.
San Diego officials also made their position clearer Friday. In a lengthy statement released by the city, officials emphasized that La Jolla Cove remains open year-round and welcomes an estimated three million visitors annually, including swimmers, divers, kayakers and beachgoers.
"The City's goal is preserving that public access while keeping both people and wildlife safe," the city stated.
Mayor Gloria similarly rejected the premise that protecting sea lions necessarily requires eliminating public access.
"We are using every tool available to protect La Jolla's sea lions while keeping this coastline safe and accessible for the public," Gloria said.
The city says Park Rangers now maintain a seven-day-a-week presence at the Cove and provide visitor education, multilingual announcements and on-the-beach crowd management. Rangers tell visitors to remain at least 20 feet from sea lions and may use cones or redirect beach access when animals congregate near stairways.
San Diego is also working with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, California Coastal Commission, Sierra Club Seal Society and other organizations while evaluating additional ranger coverage, signage, crowd-management measures and public education.
The city's announcement therefore places it at odds with the most expansive version of Pall's campaign. While Pall argues there is "NO reason" La Jolla Cove needs to remain open to the general public, city officials say their objective is explicitly to preserve access while preventing dangerous interactions with wildlife.
Pall's petition is nevertheless becoming increasingly prominent as its signature count approaches 35,000. The campaign has generated media coverage, helped mobilize people to attend community meetings and provided Pall with a growing number he can cite when arguing that the public supports stronger restrictions.
The signatures may represent genuine public support for Pall's position, and his financial relationship with Change.org does not make that support illegitimate. Nor does being paid by Change.org establish that Pall's advocacy for marine mammals is insincere.
What is now established is that Pall is a compensated Change.org Ambassador and that Change.org's Ambassador program includes a revenue-sharing mechanism connected to petition promotion and resulting signatures. Change.org says paid promotion typically generates $0.30–$0.50 in revenue per resulting signature and that Ambassadors receive an unspecified portion of that amount. What remains undisclosed is Pall's individual share, total compensation and complete contractual arrangement.
The messages also show Pall defending the sincerity of his advocacy and saying his involvement extends beyond Change.org's sponsorship. He told the follower that he intended to continue advocating for the animals and said his most recent post was part of continuing the campaign without Change.org's backing.
There is nothing in the messages that establishes Pall does not genuinely care about protecting marine mammals, and being compensated for advocacy does not itself make someone's beliefs insincere or illegitimate. Political organizers, nonprofit employees, lobbyists, campaign consultants and professional advocates routinely receive compensation while working for causes and policies they genuinely support.
Pall's background also complicates any simplistic suggestion that his activism began with a paid Change.org petition. Before becoming involved in the La Jolla debate, the former model played a significant role in bringing allegations against former Abercrombie & Fitch CEO Mike Jeffries into public view, after speaking to a BBC journalist about his own experience more than a decade earlier.
Pall has said that when he was a 22-year-old aspiring model in 2011, he was recruited through a middleman and ultimately attended an event at Jeffries' Hamptons home where he alleged he was pressured into sexual activity. Years later, Pall's decision to tell BBC investigative journalist Rianna Croxford about the experience helped launch an investigation that uncovered allegations from numerous other men and eventually became the BBC's The Abercrombie Guys investigation.
The reporting took on considerably greater significance when federal prosecutors later charged Jeffries, his partner Matthew Smith and recruiter James Jacobson with operating an international sex-trafficking and prostitution enterprise. The criminal investigation was conducted independently by federal authorities, and Pall's disclosure should not be characterized as having caused the prosecution, but Croxford has publicly described her conversation with Pall as the starting point for the journalistic investigation that first exposed the broader allegations.
Pall has since remained involved in advocacy surrounding the modeling industry, including work with the Model Alliance and support for New York's Fashion Workers Act. That history does not resolve the separate transparency questions surrounding his current Change.org arrangement, but it provides relevant context: Pall's public advocacy and involvement with social causes substantially predate his campaign over La Jolla's seals and sea lions.
Federal Trade Commission guidance provides additional context. The FTC says influencers should disclose financial or other material relationships clearly and conspicuously and should not assume followers already know about a commercial relationship.
The FTC's updated Endorsement Guides define clear and conspicuous disclosure more specifically and caution that even a platform's built-in disclosure tool may not always be sufficient depending upon how an endorsement is presented. The agency has long identified payment as the type of material connection that can affect the weight or credibility consumers give an endorsement.
Whether Pall's particular posts legally qualify as endorsements governed by those rules, and whether his disclosures satisfy any applicable requirements, would depend upon the complete circumstances of each communication. SanDiegoVille is not asserting that Pall has violated FTC regulations.
One of Pall's most recent posts nevertheless became part of the disclosure dispute. Published as the petition approached 25,000 signatures, it told followers, "Please sign if you haven't already and share this petition," while announcing that Pall planned to present the petition at the La Jolla Parks & Beaches meeting. The post accumulated approximately half a million views.
Pall's private messages indicated that sponsorship language did not appear in one of his recent captions because he said he was continuing the campaign without Change.org's backing. A subsequent version of the post embedded in Pall's August 26 Substack displayed "#sponsored" in the Instagram caption.
The dispute over Pall's financial relationship has since become more contentious. On August 28, Pall posted an Instagram Story telling followers he was uncovering "a lot of 'conflict of interests'" involving supporters of the pinnipeds and people opposed to closing the beaches. He invited reporters to contact him because he had "some interesting details to share," while characterizing allegations circulating about him as "false accusations" and a "Classic desperate attempt @ at a smear campaign."
That same morning, in another private exchange supplied to SanDiegoVille, Pall received allegations concerning another person involved in the La Jolla debate. His response included a question about that person's funding.
"What I'm most curious if who is paying you?" Pall wrote.
The exchange later deteriorated further. Pall accused the follower of intentionally misrepresenting him and said he would end further communication.
"If you continue to spread false accusations about me, which I will see because I have a lot of people informing me of plenty about you and others involved my lawyers will be who you hear from next," Pall wrote.
The messages do not establish wrongdoing by Pall, nor do they resolve the legal sufficiency of his social-media disclosures. They do show that questions about his financial relationship with Change.org were raised directly with him before he publicly characterized criticism surrounding the campaign as an attempted smear.
Meanwhile, Pall's petition continues to grow, and its signature count has become an increasingly prominent component of his effort to influence San Diego policy.
In a recent update announcing that the campaign had reached approximately 33,000 signatures, Pall tagged Mayor Todd Gloria and City Council President Joe LaCava and accused them of not caring about the issue because they continue to oppose closing the beach. Pall urged followers to "keep calling both of their offices and sending emails," while his petition similarly calls upon local leaders to permanently close beach access and prioritize the coastline as habitat for seals and sea lions.
Change.org emphasized in its response that the petition's supporters should not be viewed differently because Pall is compensated.
"Nearly 35,000 people signed this petition and whatever the city ultimately decides about La Jolla Cove will be decided by local officials, public safety, wildlife protection, and community input," Siegel wrote.
The campaign is unfolding amid a legitimate and increasingly contentious debate over how San Diego should manage interactions between people and marine mammals at La Jolla Cove. The issue has become especially heated following repeated incidents of visitors approaching, crowding or harassing sea lions.
A particularly disturbing July video showed a young man approaching and harassing a sea lion near the Cove. Eighteen-year-old Tyler Muehl subsequently pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor violation of the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act.
Those incidents have intensified calls for stronger restrictions, but substantial disagreement remains over whether the appropriate response is enforcement against people who violate wildlife protections or restrictions affecting public access more broadly.
The Children's Pool also carries a nearly century-old history as a place specifically created for public recreation and safe ocean access. La Jolla philanthropist Ellen Browning Scripps funded construction of the massive curved breakwater, completed in 1931, to transform what had been a dangerous stretch of coastline affected by currents and undertow into a sheltered area where children could safely swim.
That recreational purpose was ultimately embedded in state law. When California transferred the tidelands to the City of San Diego in 1931, the Legislature required the property to be devoted to public park use, a "bathing pool for children," playground and recreational purposes. The legal framework was amended decades later to permit the city to also use the area as a marine mammal park, reflecting the dramatic transformation of Children's Pool after harbor seals increasingly began using its beach.
The history adds another dimension to the current closure debate. What is now internationally recognizable as a harbor seal gathering place was not originally constructed as wildlife habitat; the breakwater itself was a major human intervention in the natural coastline specifically intended to make the ocean more accessible and safer for people, particularly children. The modern dispute therefore pits two public purposes that emerged generations apart: preserving access to a recreational area deliberately created for swimmers and protecting the marine mammals that subsequently made the sheltered beach their home.
More than 100 people attended the August 24 La Jolla Parks & Beaches meeting on the issue, forcing organizers to accommodate a much larger crowd as supporters and opponents of access restrictions debated the future of the Cove.
The board ultimately endorsed a proposal considerably narrower than the complete closure Pall has advocated. Under the recommendation, La Jolla Cove would remain accessible to swimmers, snorkelers and divers during the June 1 through September 15 sea lion pupping season while general beach recreation and animal viewing from the sand would be prohibited.
San Diego officials also made their position clearer Friday. In a lengthy statement released by the city, officials emphasized that La Jolla Cove remains open year-round and welcomes an estimated three million visitors annually, including swimmers, divers, kayakers and beachgoers.
"The City's goal is preserving that public access while keeping both people and wildlife safe," the city stated.
Mayor Gloria similarly rejected the premise that protecting sea lions necessarily requires eliminating public access.
"We are using every tool available to protect La Jolla's sea lions while keeping this coastline safe and accessible for the public," Gloria said.
The city says Park Rangers now maintain a seven-day-a-week presence at the Cove and provide visitor education, multilingual announcements and on-the-beach crowd management. Rangers tell visitors to remain at least 20 feet from sea lions and may use cones or redirect beach access when animals congregate near stairways.
San Diego is also working with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, California Coastal Commission, Sierra Club Seal Society and other organizations while evaluating additional ranger coverage, signage, crowd-management measures and public education.
The city's announcement therefore places it at odds with the most expansive version of Pall's campaign. While Pall argues there is "NO reason" La Jolla Cove needs to remain open to the general public, city officials say their objective is explicitly to preserve access while preventing dangerous interactions with wildlife.
Pall's petition is nevertheless becoming increasingly prominent as its signature count approaches 35,000. The campaign has generated media coverage, helped mobilize people to attend community meetings and provided Pall with a growing number he can cite when arguing that the public supports stronger restrictions.
The signatures may represent genuine public support for Pall's position, and his financial relationship with Change.org does not make that support illegitimate. Nor does being paid by Change.org establish that Pall's advocacy for marine mammals is insincere.
What is now established is that Pall is a compensated Change.org Ambassador and that Change.org's Ambassador program includes a revenue-sharing mechanism connected to petition promotion and resulting signatures. Change.org says paid promotion typically generates $0.30–$0.50 in revenue per resulting signature and that Ambassadors receive an unspecified portion of that amount. What remains undisclosed is Pall's individual share, total compensation and complete contractual arrangement.
UPDATE - August 29, 2026 at 12:53pm: Following publication of this article, Pall publicly responded to the reporting through comments on SanDiegoVille's Instagram post and a series of posts to his own Instagram Story. Pall characterized the article as "misinformation" and "factually incorrect" and wrote that his lawyers were "going to have a field day," but did not identify in the public responses reviewed by SanDiegoVille or in Instagram comment responses which specific factual statements he contends are inaccurate.
Pall's public response came after SanDiegoVille had contacted him directly by email and Instagram on Friday, August 28 at approximately 12:40pm, seeking comment and clarification concerning his Change.org relationship before publication. Pall did not respond to those requests, including questions seeking the terms of his compensation arrangement and inviting him to provide information that could clarify or correct the reporting. He instead commented publicly after the article was published.
Pall subsequently published screenshots and photographs purporting to identify the individual behind SanDiegoVille, writing that the person had "worked hard to not make his identity known" and adding, "It took me 2 hours." Pall also alleged that the person "likes to go after small businesses and BIPOC / QUEER businesses in San Diego," without providing supporting evidence for that characterization in the Story reviewed by SanDiegoVille.
In another post sharing the SanDiegoVille article, Pall wrote, "My lawyers are going to have a field day with the spreading of misinformation." He also wrote, "As I mentioned, the wealthy white people are pissed," and accused unspecified accounts of attempting to use his image to generate traffic to their websites.
UPDATE - August 31, 2026, at 2:44pm: Change.org responded to SanDiegoVille's pre-publication inquiry and confirmed that Pall is a compensated Change.org Ambassador.
Change.org said SanDiegoVille's inquiry, sent Friday afternoon, had not been seen before publication because its press inbox is monitored only periodically and the email did not include a deadline.
The organization requested that SanDiegoVille change its original headline from describing Pall as "reportedly" paid to stating the relationship as fact. That correction has been made.
Change.org also disputed references indicating Pall was compensated per petition signature, stating categorically that "Change.org Ambassadors are not paid per signature". SanDiegoVille has updated references to Pall's individual compensation accordingly and removed an earlier hypothetical earnings calculation.
The company's statement appears inconsistent, however, with language on the Change.org Ambassador pages it directed SanDiegoVille to use. Those materials describe a guaranteed advance, "performance-based compensation" and, on the Ambassador overview page, compensation of "$0.30–$0.50 for every signature your petition collects."
SanDiegoVille has asked Change.org to clarify the apparent discrepancy and will update this article if additional information is provided.
Change.org also stated that all Ambassador assets are monitored for compliance with FTC guidelines and emphasized that nearly 35,000 people independently chose to sign Pall's petition.
UPDATE - September 1, 2026, at 10:24am: Change.org provided additional clarification after SanDiegoVille asked the company to reconcile its categorical statement that Ambassadors "are not paid per signature" with its own current Ambassador materials advertising compensation associated with petition signatures.
Change.org now says users can pay to promote petitions they have signed through advertisements shown to other Change.org visitors. According to the company, those promotions typically generate between $0.30 and $0.50 in revenue per resulting signature, with Ambassadors receiving an unspecified portion of that revenue.
"These promotions typically generate $0.30–$0.50 in revenue per signature, and our Ambassadors receive a portion of this amount," Siegel told SanDiegoVille. "Actual results may vary and are not guaranteed."
The explanation appears to distinguish between paying an Ambassador a fixed amount directly for each signature and sharing revenue that Change.org itself calculates on a per-signature basis. Change.org has not disclosed what portion of that revenue Pall receives, his total compensation or the terms of his individual agreement.
Change.org's current Ambassador webpage nevertheless continues to advertise a guaranteed advance plus "monthly revenue paid out per signature" and describes potential earnings as "$0.30–$0.50 per signature, paid monthly as your petition grows." Change.org's latest explanation indicates that the advertised $0.30–$0.50 represents revenue generated through paid promotion rather than necessarily the amount personally received by an Ambassador.
SanDiegoVille therefore continues to refrain from attributing the advertised $0.30–$0.50 rate directly to Pall. The latest response does establish that Change.org's Ambassador compensation model includes revenue generated on a per-signature basis and that Ambassadors receive a portion of that revenue.
Change.org also confirmed that its Trust & Safety team received SanDiegoVille's complaint concerning Pall's conduct following publication and said it "will be reviewed by the appropriate individuals." The company did not address SanDiegoVille's questions concerning Pall's individual social-media disclosures or whether his conduct toward SanDiegoVille is consistent with Change.org's standards for compensated Ambassadors.
SanDiegoVille stands by the balance of its reporting and appreciates Change.org providing additional clarification. Pall remains welcome to identify any additional specific factual statement he believes is inaccurate and provide information or documentation supporting a correction.
Originally published August 29, 2026. Updated August 29 following Pall's public response, August 31 following Change.org's initial response, and September 1 following Change.org's additional explanation of its Ambassador compensation structure.
Pall's public response came after SanDiegoVille had contacted him directly by email and Instagram on Friday, August 28 at approximately 12:40pm, seeking comment and clarification concerning his Change.org relationship before publication. Pall did not respond to those requests, including questions seeking the terms of his compensation arrangement and inviting him to provide information that could clarify or correct the reporting. He instead commented publicly after the article was published.
Pall subsequently published screenshots and photographs purporting to identify the individual behind SanDiegoVille, writing that the person had "worked hard to not make his identity known" and adding, "It took me 2 hours." Pall also alleged that the person "likes to go after small businesses and BIPOC / QUEER businesses in San Diego," without providing supporting evidence for that characterization in the Story reviewed by SanDiegoVille.
In another post sharing the SanDiegoVille article, Pall wrote, "My lawyers are going to have a field day with the spreading of misinformation." He also wrote, "As I mentioned, the wealthy white people are pissed," and accused unspecified accounts of attempting to use his image to generate traffic to their websites.
UPDATE - August 31, 2026, at 2:44pm: Change.org responded to SanDiegoVille's pre-publication inquiry and confirmed that Pall is a compensated Change.org Ambassador.
Change.org said SanDiegoVille's inquiry, sent Friday afternoon, had not been seen before publication because its press inbox is monitored only periodically and the email did not include a deadline.
The organization requested that SanDiegoVille change its original headline from describing Pall as "reportedly" paid to stating the relationship as fact. That correction has been made.
Change.org also disputed references indicating Pall was compensated per petition signature, stating categorically that "Change.org Ambassadors are not paid per signature". SanDiegoVille has updated references to Pall's individual compensation accordingly and removed an earlier hypothetical earnings calculation.
The company's statement appears inconsistent, however, with language on the Change.org Ambassador pages it directed SanDiegoVille to use. Those materials describe a guaranteed advance, "performance-based compensation" and, on the Ambassador overview page, compensation of "$0.30–$0.50 for every signature your petition collects."
SanDiegoVille has asked Change.org to clarify the apparent discrepancy and will update this article if additional information is provided.
Change.org also stated that all Ambassador assets are monitored for compliance with FTC guidelines and emphasized that nearly 35,000 people independently chose to sign Pall's petition.
UPDATE - September 1, 2026, at 10:24am: Change.org provided additional clarification after SanDiegoVille asked the company to reconcile its categorical statement that Ambassadors "are not paid per signature" with its own current Ambassador materials advertising compensation associated with petition signatures.
Change.org now says users can pay to promote petitions they have signed through advertisements shown to other Change.org visitors. According to the company, those promotions typically generate between $0.30 and $0.50 in revenue per resulting signature, with Ambassadors receiving an unspecified portion of that revenue.
"These promotions typically generate $0.30–$0.50 in revenue per signature, and our Ambassadors receive a portion of this amount," Siegel told SanDiegoVille. "Actual results may vary and are not guaranteed."
The explanation appears to distinguish between paying an Ambassador a fixed amount directly for each signature and sharing revenue that Change.org itself calculates on a per-signature basis. Change.org has not disclosed what portion of that revenue Pall receives, his total compensation or the terms of his individual agreement.
Change.org's current Ambassador webpage nevertheless continues to advertise a guaranteed advance plus "monthly revenue paid out per signature" and describes potential earnings as "$0.30–$0.50 per signature, paid monthly as your petition grows." Change.org's latest explanation indicates that the advertised $0.30–$0.50 represents revenue generated through paid promotion rather than necessarily the amount personally received by an Ambassador.
SanDiegoVille therefore continues to refrain from attributing the advertised $0.30–$0.50 rate directly to Pall. The latest response does establish that Change.org's Ambassador compensation model includes revenue generated on a per-signature basis and that Ambassadors receive a portion of that revenue.
Change.org also confirmed that its Trust & Safety team received SanDiegoVille's complaint concerning Pall's conduct following publication and said it "will be reviewed by the appropriate individuals." The company did not address SanDiegoVille's questions concerning Pall's individual social-media disclosures or whether his conduct toward SanDiegoVille is consistent with Change.org's standards for compensated Ambassadors.
SanDiegoVille stands by the balance of its reporting and appreciates Change.org providing additional clarification. Pall remains welcome to identify any additional specific factual statement he believes is inaccurate and provide information or documentation supporting a correction.
Originally published August 29, 2026. Updated August 29 following Pall's public response, August 31 following Change.org's initial response, and September 1 following Change.org's additional explanation of its Ambassador compensation structure.
