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 34,000 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."
The arrangement is part of a Change.org initiative that effectively turns online petition organizing into a paid creator program. Change.org says its Ambassador program provides participating creators with upfront payments, performance-based compensation and strategic guidance to launch and grow sponsored petitions.
According to Change.org's public recruitment materials, Ambassadors receive a guaranteed advance based on audience size plus between 30 and 50 cents for every signature their petition collects, with payments made monthly for up to one year. The company says participating Ambassadors historically have earned an average total of approximately $5,000, while high-performing creators have earned as much as $90,000.
Change.org is unusually explicit about the dual role signatures play in the program. Its Ambassador website tells prospective creators that signatures are what create pressure because they show decision-makers how many people support a petition, while elsewhere on the same page explaining that creators can earn additional money for those same signatures.
That creates an unusual dynamic in a campaign seeking to influence public policy over access to one of San Diego's most valuable and heavily visited public beaches. Each additional signature can simultaneously increase the apparent public support Pall can present to elected officials while also increasing compensation under the type of performance-based structure Change.org publicly describes.
Pall has not concealed the existence of a sponsorship, an important distinction. SanDiegoVille reviewed four Instagram posts Pall published about La Jolla's seals and sea lions during August and found that three expressly describe his Change.org campaign as "#sponsored," although there were no specific details on the 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 simply concealed the existence of a commercial relationship. Change.org itself says every paid Ambassador campaign includes a disclosure stating, "This is a sponsored petition."
The more specific question is what followers understand that sponsorship to mean. None of the visible disclosures reviewed by SanDiegoVille expressly explains that Change.org operates an Ambassador compensation program in which additional payments can be tied directly to petition growth.
New 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 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: not simply whether Pall had disclosed that Change.org sponsored the campaign, but whether followers understood that Change.org's Ambassador program can compensate creators based upon petition growth. The follower asked whether Pall intended to make a separate disclosure explaining that 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."
That response is notable because Change.org's own current public Ambassador materials expressly describe the program as paying participating creators an upfront advance and additional compensation tied to petition signatures. Without Pall's individual agreement, however, SanDiegoVille cannot determine the precise terms governing his campaign, what rate applies to his petition, which signatures qualify or how much he has actually been paid.
At approximately 34,000 signatures, the publicly advertised Change.org rate would mathematically equate to between $10,200 and $17,000 in per-signature compensation if every signature qualified under Pall's individual agreement, before any guaranteed advance. That is not an estimate of Pall's actual earnings: Change.org says contributions per signature vary by petition and are not guaranteed, and SanDiegoVille has not obtained Pall's individual contract.
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.
The transparency question is narrower: whether someone encountering Pall's campaign understands not merely that Change.org "sponsored" it, but that the platform operates a creator program under which petition growth itself can generate additional compensation for the person urging people to sign.
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 the 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 is nevertheless noteworthy. 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.
Unlike the three earlier posts reviewed by SanDiegoVille, the visible caption on that post did not contain "#sponsored" or otherwise state that Pall was compensated by Change.org in connection with the petition. Pall's private messages appear to acknowledge that distinction, saying sponsorship language appeared in all of his captions "except the last one" because he was continuing the effort without Change.org's backing.
Whether that particular post constituted compensated promotional activity under Pall's agreement is unknown. SanDiegoVille has asked Pall for clarification and has not obtained his contract.
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.
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.
More than 100 people attended the August 24 La Jolla Parks & Beaches meeting, forcing organizers to move the proceedings into a larger room as supporters and opponents of access restrictions debated the future of the Cove. The discussion became contentious enough to include cross-talk and shouting among attendees.
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 in Friday's release.
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 emphasized that enforcement of the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act ultimately falls to federal authorities.
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.
But Change.org's own program materials establish an unusual overlap between political influence and financial compensation in this particular campaign: the company says petition signatures demonstrate to decision-makers how many people support a cause while also paying participating creators additional money as those same signatures accumulate.
SanDiegoVille has asked Pall to disclose how much Change.org has paid him in connection with the La Jolla petition, his individual per-signature compensation rate, the amount of any guaranteed advance, which signatures qualify for payment and whether he believes his followers understand the performance-based nature of the Ambassador program when he describes the campaign as "#sponsored."
Change.org is also being asked to explain the terms applicable to Pall's specific campaign, what disclosure it requires when Ambassadors promote petitions through social media and whether the company considers simply identifying a petition as "sponsored" sufficient when a creator may receive additional compensation as signatures accumulate.
Until those questions are answered, Pall's exact earnings remain unknown. But the existence and general structure of Change.org's compensation program are not speculative: the company's current public materials advertise a guaranteed advance plus 30 to 50 cents per petition signature, paid monthly as participating campaigns grow.
The controversy adds another layer to a La Jolla debate already involving wildlife advocates, swimmers and divers, beach-access proponents, city officials, federal wildlife protections and the California Coastal Commission. Now, a petition approaching 35,000 signatures has emerged as another potentially influential force, and the influencer driving it is participating in a commercial program specifically designed to pay creators for turning their online audiences into petition supporters.Originally published on August 29, 2026.
Originally published on August 29, 2026.
