The growing spread of online misinformation has created an urgent need for scalable, reliable fact-checking solutions. Crowdsourced fact-checking - where non-experts evaluate claim veracity - offers a cost-effective alternative to expert verification, despite concerns about variability in quality and bias. Encouraged by promising results in certain contexts, major platforms such as X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, and Instagram have begun shifting from centralized moderation to decentralized, crowd-based approaches. In parallel, advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown strong performance across core fact-checking tasks, including claim detection and evidence evaluation. However, their potential role in crowdsourced workflows remains unexplored. This paper investigates whether LLM-powered generative agents - autonomous entities that emulate human behavior and decision-making - can meaningfully contribute to fact-checking tasks traditionally reserved for human crowds. Using the protocol of La Barbera et al. (2024), we simulate crowds of generative agents with diverse demographic and ideological profiles. Agents retrieve evidence, assess claims along multiple quality dimensions, and issue final veracity judgments. Our results show that agent crowds outperform human crowds in truthfulness classification, exhibit higher internal consistency, and show reduced susceptibility to social and cognitive biases. Compared to humans, agents rely more systematically on informative criteria such as Accuracy, Precision, and Informativeness, suggesting a more structured decision-making process. Overall, our findings highlight the potential of generative agents as scalable, consistent, and less biased contributors to crowd-based fact-checking systems.