I learned this the hard way when a 40kg mastiff escaped from her harness and lunged at another dog. I had no idea this was a dangerous reactive dog with severe behaviour issues.
Actually, that's not quite right. The owner did mention something during our meet and greet. Something about the dog "getting her exercise in the garden." A euphemism I was supposed to decode while simultaneously meeting his family, three children, two of their school friends, and two extremely excited dogs in a chaotic living room.
What he meant was: this dog cannot be safely walked and we've been rejected by every local dog walker who knows her.
What Rover's platform allowed him to say was: nothing at all.
The blank profile problem
Here's what Rover's dog profile system looks like for owners:
- Behavioral information: [Optional]
- Reactivity with other dogs: [Optional]
- Reactivity with people: [Optional]
- Special requirements: [Optional]
Notice a pattern?
Every single field that would warn a sitter about a dangerous dog is optional. And when owners leave them blank - which they do constantly - Rover doesn't flag it. Doesn't require disclosure. Doesn't even ask "are you sure?"
The profile just goes live. Blank. Clean. Ready to trap the next unsuspecting sitter.
Why Rover allows this
Let me be very clear about what's happening here: Rover knows that owners with problem dogs are their most reliable customers.
Think about it:
- Well-behaved dog?
Owner has options. Friends, family, local recommended walkers, kennels that will accept them.
- Reactive, aggressive, or dangerous dog?
Owner is desperate. They've been turned down everywhere else. They need Rover. And they need Rover to let them hide the truth long enough to get someone to say yes.
Rover takes 20-25% of every booking. The more desperate the owner, the more valuable the customer.
A platform that actually required honest disclosure of behavioral issues would lose its highest-value customer segment. So it doesn't.
The liability shell game
When I raised safety concerns with Rover after abandoning the booking, their response was illuminating.
They paid me immediately. No argument. No investigation needed.
Why? Because they knew exactly what had happened. Owner withheld critical safety information. Sitter put at risk. Platform's fault for allowing blank profiles.
But here's the thing: they only paid me because I knew my rights and pushed back. Most sitters don't.
Most sitters feel guilty for "abandoning" the dog, don't understand they can refuse unsafe situations, don't know Rover's policies, and are too exhausted to fight.
And Rover counts on that.
The business model works because:
- Platform takes no liability (you're "independent contractors")
- Owners lie or omit (platform allows blank fields)
- Sitters absorb all risk (injury, property damage, lawsuit if dog attacks someone)
- Rover takes 20-25% regardless of outcome
What they don't tell you
You are not insured for:
- Dog bites or attacks on you
- Your phone/belongings damaged by the dog
- Veterinary costs if the dog is injured in your care
- Legal liability if the dog attacks another person or animal
- Loss of income if you're injured and can't work
Rover's "guarantee" covers property damage to the owner's home. That's it.
You - the sitter - are completely exposed.
And when you're dealing with a dog whose owner has deliberately concealed behavioral issues? You're walking into a liability minefield blindfolded.
The Reddit evidence
Don't take my word for it. Search Reddit for "Rover dangerous dog", "Rover reactive dog not disclosed", or "Rover dog attacked me".
You'll find hundreds of posts from sitters dealing with dogs that bite, dogs that attack other animals, dogs with severe separation anxiety not disclosed, dogs on medication the owner "forgot" to mention, and owners who disappear after drop-off.
This is not an anomaly. It's a pattern.
And Rover knows about it. They have the data. They see the safety reports. They read the complaints.
They just don't change the system because the system is working exactly as designed.
Why this matters
I'm a software developer. I did Rover as a side thing for extra cash and because I like dogs. I could walk away.
But many Rover sitters are students needing income, people between jobs, immigrants building networks, or retired people on fixed incomes.
They can't afford to turn down bookings, even dangerous ones. They can't afford the insurance they actually need. They can't afford a lawyer if something goes wrong.
Rover profits from this power imbalance.
What needs to change
- Mandatory behavioral disclosure
No blank profiles. Owners must answer safety questions or booking can't go live.
- Sitter insurance
Real coverage for injuries, not just property damage. Rover takes 25% of bookings - they can afford it.
- Liability protection
If an owner lies about their dog and someone gets hurt, Rover should be liable for allowing the deception.
- Transparent review system
Sitters should be able to see red flags in owner history, just like owners see sitter ratings.
- Right to refuse
Sitters need explicit right to refuse bookings or abandon unsafe situations without penalty.
The bottom line
Rover's business model depends on information asymmetry. Owners know their dogs are problems. Rover allows them to hide it. Sitters find out too late.
Someone will eventually be seriously hurt. A sitter will be mauled. A dog will attack a child in a park. Someone will sue.
And when it happens, Rover will do what they always do: claim they're "just a platform," hide behind their terms of service, and continue taking their 25% cut.
Until then, they're making money from danger. And calling it "community."
If you're considering working for Rover: know the risks. You're uninsured, unprotected, and entirely expendable.