Sarahah, NGL, and the Anonymous Messaging Apps That Came Before

An app can become popular much faster than its safety systems can mature.

That becomes particularly important when teenagers are among the most active users.

NGL: The Current Dominant Player

NGL ("not gonna lie") picked up roughly where Sarahah left off, built specifically for Instagram and Snapchat bio links, and became the default choice for anonymous Q&A boxes on stories.

NGL ran into its own serious trouble. In July 2024, the FTC and the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office brought a joint action against NGL Labs and its co-founders, alleging the app sent AI-generated fake messages designed to look like they came from real people — specifically to trick users into paying for a "reveal" feature that claimed to unmask an anonymous sender but often didn't actually work. The case also covered deceptive billing (users signing up for what they thought was a one-time charge were enrolled in a recurring weekly fee of up to $9.99 without clear consent) and marketing the app to users under 18 despite an 18+ App Store rating.

The settlement totaled $5 million — $4.5 million in consumer redress and a $500,000 civil penalty — and NGL Labs was banned from offering anonymous messaging products to anyone under 18. (If you want the full breakdown of what was actually alleged and what it means if you're already an NGL user, that's covered in is NGL safe? — the privacy controversy explained.)

NGL and the Business of Curiosity

One of the most important differences between a basic anonymous messaging link and a heavily monetized anonymous messaging app is what happens after you receive a message.

The message itself can be free.

The curiosity about who sent it can become the product.

That creates a particularly powerful incentive because anonymous messages naturally leave recipients with an unanswered question:

Who said this?

If an app then offers a paid feature that appears to answer that question, the user's curiosity becomes something the platform can monetize.

This is why paid sender-reveal claims deserve careful scrutiny.

The problem isn't that people are curious. Of course they are.

The problem is when a product's revenue model depends on making that curiosity increasingly difficult to resist.

What "Anonymous" Has Meant Across Different Apps

Anonymous messaging has never had one universal technical meaning.

In some services, anonymous simply means the recipient doesn't see the sender's name.

In others, the platform may provide hints, clues, or other information.

Some services have offered paid features intended to identify or narrow down the sender.

That means users should never assume that two apps offering "anonymous messages" provide exactly the same experience.

Before using one, it's worth asking what anonymity means on that particular platform.

Who can see the sender?

What information is collected?

Can the recipient receive identifying clues?

What does the platform say about its ability to reveal a sender?

And what happens if someone uses the service to harass another person?

What's Actually Changed

A few real differences between the earlier apps and what exists now:

• More scrutiny of "reveal" features. After the NGL case, any anonymous app claiming it can unmask a sender for a fee is worth treating with real skepticism — that exact promise is what got NGL in trouble for not actually delivering.

• Clearer expectations around minors. Both Sarahah's shutdown and NGL's settlement were driven substantially by concerns about how the apps affected teenagers specifically, which has pushed the whole category toward more visible age-related policies.

• Billing transparency became a real issue, not a footnote. Recurring charges buried in a "free" anonymous app are now something people actively watch for, largely because of what happened with NGL.

What hasn't changed much is the core appeal — a low-friction way to hear something honest, or say something you wouldn't attach your name to. That part of the idea has survived multiple app failures because the actual need behind it is real.

The Core Idea Didn't Disappear

This is probably the most interesting part of the Sarahah-to-NGL story.

The apps changed.

The branding changed.

The social networks they were built around changed.

But the underlying behavior didn't disappear.

People still want ways to tell someone something without immediately putting their name on it.

Sometimes that means giving honest feedback.

Sometimes it's a confession.

Sometimes it's a compliment.

Sometimes it's a difficult observation that feels easier to communicate anonymously.

The repeated popularity of these services suggests that the demand isn't necessarily for a particular app. It is for a simple form of low-friction anonymous communication.

Why People Still Want Anonymous Messaging

There are plenty of ordinary reasons someone might prefer to communicate anonymously.

A friend may want to point out a behavior without starting an argument.

A coworker may want to give feedback without creating workplace tension.

Someone may want to admit something embarrassing.

A person may want to ask a question they aren't comfortable attaching their identity to.

Someone might simply want to send an honest compliment without making the interaction awkward.

None of those motivations inherently involve harassment or deception.

That's why it would be a mistake to look at the history of Sarahah and NGL and conclude that anonymous messaging itself is the problem.

The bigger question is how the product is designed around anonymity.

The Problem Isn't Anonymity Alone

Anonymity can remove accountability, but it can also remove fear.

That distinction is important.

If someone knows their name will be displayed, they may remain silent even when they have something genuinely useful to say.

If their identity isn't displayed, they may finally speak.

The challenge is creating a system where the benefits of that reduced social pressure aren't overwhelmed by abuse.

That means moderation, sensible product design, clear rules, age protections, and transparent expectations all matter.

What Users Should Watch For Today

The history of anonymous messaging apps gives users a useful checklist.

Be cautious when a service:

• Promises to reveal anonymous senders for money.

• Uses vague language about what a paid feature actually reveals.

• Makes billing difficult to understand.

• Automatically converts a trial into an expensive recurring subscription without making the terms obvious.

• Has unclear age restrictions.

• Appears to encourage users to send increasingly provocative messages.

• Provides little information about moderation or reporting.

• Makes broad promises about anonymity without explaining what that means.

None of these automatically proves that a service is unsafe.

But they are reasonable reasons to stop and look more closely.

Anonymous Messaging Doesn't Have to Be Complicated

One lesson from the history of these apps is that the original concept was remarkably simple.

Someone creates or shares a link.

Another person opens it.

They write a message.

The recipient receives it without seeing the sender's identity.

That's the basic mechanism.

Everything else — sender reveals, clues, subscriptions, games, artificial messages, engagement tricks — is an additional layer.

And additional layers aren't automatically bad.

But every added feature creates another question about privacy, transparency, safety, and incentives.

What a Good Anonymous Messaging Service Should Make Clear

Before trusting an anonymous messaging platform, you should be able to understand its basic rules without having to decode the fine print.

At minimum, look for clear answers to questions such as:

Who can send messages?

Can anyone with the link send one, or does the sender need an account?

Who can see the message?

Is it delivered privately to the recipient, published publicly, or visible somewhere else?

What does anonymous mean?

Does the recipient simply not see a name, or does the service provide other identifying information?

Is there a paid feature?

If so, what exactly does it do?

How does billing work?

Is the charge one-time or recurring?

What happens when someone is harassed?

Is there a way to report, block, filter, or otherwise manage unwanted messages?

These aren't complicated questions.

A trustworthy product should make the answers reasonably easy to find.

The Importance of Not Monetizing the Mystery

There's an important product-design principle buried in the history of anonymous messaging apps:

You don't have to monetize the mystery.

Anonymous communication can exist without turning the identity of the sender into something the recipient has to pay to investigate.

A person can receive a message and simply decide whether the message itself is useful.

That keeps the focus on communication rather than curiosity.

It also changes the psychological relationship between the user and the platform.

Instead of:

"Who sent this, and how much will it cost me to find out?"

the experience becomes:

"Someone wanted to tell me this. What do I think about it?"

Those are very different products.

Where This Leaves You

If you're deciding whether a specific app is worth trusting, the practical questions are the same ones that would have flagged NGL's issues early: does it charge a recurring fee you didn't clearly agree to, does it promise to reveal anonymous senders for a price, and does it have real, enforced rules about who can use it. Eucarl's anonymous messages don't charge for a "reveal" feature — you can receive and send anonymous messages as a core, free part of the platform, not an upsell.

What the Sarahah and NGL Stories Have in Common

Sarahah and NGL were different products at different points in internet culture, but their histories illustrate the same underlying challenge.

Making anonymous messaging popular is relatively easy. Building a sustainable anonymous communication product people can trust is much harder.

Virality can bring millions of people to an app.

It doesn't automatically create good moderation.

A clever feature can attract downloads.

It doesn't automatically make the feature transparent.

A huge user base can generate engagement.

It doesn't automatically mean the users are protected.

That's why the history of anonymous messaging is worth looking at as more than a list of failed apps.

It is a history of people repeatedly trying to solve the same communication problem — and discovering that the way you build around anonymity matters just as much as anonymity itself.

The Next Generation of Anonymous Messaging

The next successful anonymous messaging service doesn't necessarily need to invent a completely new concept.

It may simply need to execute the original idea better.

Give people a simple way to communicate.

Make the privacy model understandable.

Don't manufacture fake engagement.

Don't make vague promises about revealing identities.

Make billing obvious when payments exist.

Take abuse seriously.

Set clear expectations around age and safety.

And, most importantly, remember why people wanted anonymous communication in the first place.

Sometimes people don't want to hide because they have something bad to say.

Sometimes they simply want the message to be heard without making themselves the subject of the conversation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What happened to Sarahah?

Sarahah became extremely popular in 2017 but later faced significant criticism and controversy surrounding anonymous harassment and bullying, particularly involving younger users. The app was removed from major app stores in 2018 and was discontinued afterward.

Why did Sarahah become so popular?

Sarahah made anonymous feedback extremely easy to share, and its growth was amplified by social media platforms such as Snapchat. Users could share their Sarahah links and invite friends or followers to send anonymous messages.

What happened to NGL?

NGL faced legal action in 2024 from the FTC and Los Angeles District Attorney's Office over allegations involving AI-generated fake messages, its paid sender-reveal feature, billing practices, and users under 18. The company and its co-founders settled the case for $5 million, subject to the terms of the settlement.

Is NGL the same as Sarahah?

No. They were separate anonymous messaging services, launched at different times and with different product designs. NGL became popular partly through Instagram and Snapchat sharing, while Sarahah was one of the earlier services to popularize anonymous feedback links.

Why do anonymous messaging apps keep becoming popular?

The underlying need has remained relatively consistent: people want an easy way to communicate things they may not feel comfortable saying while attaching their identity. Social media makes these services particularly easy to share, which can cause them to spread rapidly.

Are anonymous messaging apps inherently bad?

No. Anonymous communication can have legitimate uses, including honest feedback, questions, compliments, and difficult conversations. The important issue is how the service handles anonymity, moderation, privacy, safety, age restrictions, and monetization.

Are paid anonymous "reveal" features trustworthy?

Users should be cautious and understand exactly what a service promises before paying. A claim that a platform can identify an anonymous sender should not automatically be treated as proof that it can provide the sender's actual identity.

What should I look for before using an anonymous messaging app?

Look at its privacy policy, age requirements, moderation and reporting tools, billing terms, and explanation of what "anonymous" means. Be particularly careful with unclear recurring subscriptions or paid features that promise to reveal information about anonymous senders.

Is anonymous messaging still relevant?

Yes. The popularity of multiple generations of anonymous messaging apps suggests that the underlying desire for low-friction, identity-free communication has not disappeared. What changes is the platform and the way the feature is implemented.

Anonymous Messaging Didn't Disappear — It Evolved

Sarahah disappeared.

NGL faced a major regulatory controversy.

Other apps have come and gone in between.

But the basic human reason people use anonymous messaging hasn't gone anywhere.

People still have things they want to say.

Sometimes they're afraid of judgment.

Sometimes they're protecting a relationship.

Sometimes they want to give honest feedback.

Sometimes they simply don't want their identity to become the story.

The history of Sarahah and NGL shows that anonymity can be powerful, but it also shows why the platform behind that anonymity matters.

The future of anonymous messaging probably isn't about making the mystery bigger.

It's about making the communication better.