Two Illinois men have initiated a class-action lawsuit against OnlyFans, alleging that messages received through their subscriptions may not have originated from the sex workers they admired. The lawsuit was first reported by 404 Media and was filed on behalf of M. Brunner and J. Fry. The legal action targets Fenix Internet, LLC and Fenix International Limited, the parent entities of OnlyFans, accusing them of perpetuating a widespread “deception” against users of the site. The plaintiffs argue that the defendants unlawfully misled users by permitting third parties to communicate on behalf of creators, a practice they say violates OnlyFans’ Terms of Service (TOS).
According to the lawsuit, despite OnlyFans’ success being built on promises of “direct” connections and “authentic” relationships, the platform allegedly facilitates schemes where users are led to believe they are having genuine interactions with creators. The complaint describes these schemes as involving the deceptive delegation of fan interactions and other tasks to third-party “management” agencies.
Gizmodo has reached out to OnlyFans for their response on this matter.
It is widely known that many OnlyFans models do not personally communicate with subscribers. This trend has been extensively reported by various media outlets, and it is generally assumed that most subscribers are aware of this reality. As Brunner admits in the lawsuit, he subscribed to a model with hundreds of thousands of followers, which logically raises questions about whether such a person can realistically engage directly with all of their fans.
OnlyFans discloses the potential use of third-party firms in user interactions. The platform’s “contract” between creators and fans states that third parties may assist creators with account operations and interactions. However, Brunner and Fry argue that this contract does not clearly define the role of third parties, as it is embedded within the TOS and requires additional action from fans to view, being referenced only by hyperlink.
The lawsuit seems to contend that locating the contract on a separate webpage from the TOS imposes an unreasonable expectation on users to navigate between pages. While it raises the issue of user responsibility to thoroughly read and understand terms of service, it also questions the feasibility of achieving the “authentic connections” advertised on the platform.