GigSmart Complaints – Letters for 5 Agencies

1) Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE)

State labor standards Lost wages / reliance W-2 scheduling harm

[DATE]

To Whom It May Concern,

I am submitting this complaint to report repeated issues I experienced as a W-2 worker using the GigSmart employment platform in Colorado.

On multiple occasions, I accepted job assignments that were represented as confirmed through the GigSmart system. Based on those confirmations, I stopped searching for other work, made myself unavailable for alternative employment, and prepared for the scheduled shifts. In several instances, I was notified shortly before the start time—or after I had already begun preparing or traveling—that I was “not hired” or that the assignment was cancelled, often without explanation.

Because I was classified as a W-2 employee, these cancellations caused direct financial harm. The platform also prevented me from accepting other work during the time I was marked as scheduled or hired, resulting in lost income and wasted time. This occurred more than once and appears to be a recurring, systemic issue rather than an isolated mistake.

I attempted to seek clarification from GigSmart regarding why these cancellations occur and what safeguards exist to protect workers, but I did not receive a clear or satisfactory explanation.

I am requesting that CDLE review these practices to determine whether they comply with Colorado labor standards related to wages, fair employment practices, and worker reliance on scheduled work.

Sincerely,

William Lodge
[YOUR PHONE]
[YOUR EMAIL]
[YOUR CITY, STATE]

Tip: Add 2–5 examples with dates/times if you have them. Even “Approx. July 2025 – accepted shift, cancelled morning-of” helps.

2) U.S. Department of Labor – Wage & Hour Division

Federal wage & hour Systemic scheduling practices Economic harm

[DATE]

To Whom It May Concern,

I am filing this complaint to report a pattern of cancelled W-2 job assignments through the GigSmart platform that resulted in lost wages and economic harm.

As a W-2 worker, I accepted job assignments that were represented as confirmed. In reliance on these confirmations, I ceased seeking other work and made myself unavailable during the scheduled hours. On multiple occasions, the assignments were cancelled with little or no notice, sometimes after I had already begun preparing for or traveling to the job site.

The GigSmart platform also restricted my ability to accept other work while showing me as scheduled or hired, compounding the financial impact of the cancellations. These practices caused lost income and disrupted my ability to maintain consistent employment.

This issue occurred more than once and appears to be systemic. I believe these practices warrant review under federal wage and hour standards, including whether workers are being unfairly deprived of expected wages through platform-based scheduling practices.

Sincerely,

William Lodge
[YOUR PHONE]
[YOUR EMAIL]
[YOUR CITY, STATE]

Tip: If you have screenshots showing “confirmed” and later “not hired,” mention that you can provide them upon request.

3) Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

Worker classification Control vs. risk Payroll tax implications

[DATE]

To Whom It May Concern,

I am submitting this report to raise concerns regarding worker classification and employment practices used by the GigSmart platform.

I was classified and treated as a W-2 employee for purposes of accepting assignments, scheduling, and availability control. However, when assignments were cancelled, the financial risk and loss of income were shifted entirely onto me as the worker, without the protections typically associated with W-2 employment.

The platform exercised control by confirming assignments, blocking me from accepting other work, and setting expectations of scheduled employment. At the same time, cancellations occurred without compensation or explanation, creating a situation where the responsibilities and risks appeared inconsistent with standard W-2 employment practices.

I am not asserting a specific violation, but I am requesting that the IRS review whether GigSmart’s classification and handling of workers is consistent with federal tax and employment classification requirements.

Sincerely,

William Lodge
[YOUR PHONE]
[YOUR EMAIL]
[YOUR CITY, STATE]

Tip: If you received W-2s/1099s or saw inconsistent labels inside the app, briefly note that in 1–2 sentences.

4) Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Deceptive practices Misleading “confirmed” work Platform design harms workers

[DATE]

To Whom It May Concern,

I am submitting this complaint to report potentially deceptive practices by the GigSmart platform related to representations of confirmed work.

GigSmart presented job assignments as confirmed or hired through its user interface. Based on these representations, I reasonably relied on the expectation of scheduled work and made myself unavailable for other opportunities. In multiple instances, these assignments were later cancelled without explanation, sometimes at the last minute.

Additionally, the platform’s design prevented me from accepting other work while I was marked as scheduled or hired, amplifying the financial harm caused by the cancellations. The combination of “confirmed” representations and system restrictions created a misleading impression of guaranteed work that did not, in practice, exist.

I believe these practices may constitute deceptive or unfair business practices, particularly where platform design foreseeably causes financial harm to workers who rely on its representations.

Sincerely,

William Lodge
[YOUR PHONE]
[YOUR EMAIL]
[YOUR CITY, STATE]

Tip: If the app literally labels it “confirmed,” “hired,” or “assigned,” quote the exact wording from the screen.

5) Colorado Attorney General

Unfair / deceptive practices Pattern affecting workers Colorado enforcement

[DATE]

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to request review of employment practices used by the GigSmart platform that have negatively affected me as a Colorado worker.

As a W-2 worker, I repeatedly accepted job assignments represented as confirmed. I relied on those confirmations by making myself unavailable for other work. On multiple occasions, the assignments were cancelled with little or no notice and without explanation, resulting in lost income and wasted time.

The platform also restricted my ability to accept alternative work while showing me as scheduled or hired. This combination of representations and system controls caused predictable and recurring harm. My attempts to obtain clarification from GigSmart were unsuccessful.

Because these issues appear to be systemic and may affect multiple workers, I am requesting that the Attorney General’s Office review whether these practices constitute unfair or deceptive trade practices under Colorado law.

Sincerely,

William Lodge
[YOUR PHONE]
[YOUR EMAIL]
[YOUR CITY, STATE]

Tip: The AG version is strongest when you mention “this appears systemic and likely affects many workers,” which you already do.