Fenix Internet LLC, owner of the OnlyFans platform, is facing a class action lawsuit filed by five subscribers in California federal court. 

The plaintiffs allege that OnlyFans knowingly permits professional “chatters” to impersonate content creators, violating state and federal consumer and privacy laws.

The lawsuit claims that users are deceived into believing they are communicating directly with content creators they’ve paid to connect with, resulting in sharing personal information with unauthorized parties. 

Plaintiffs argue that OnlyFans, despite claims of monitoring platform activities, fails to prevent the use of these chatters.

One plaintiff from Tennessee reports spending up to $25,000 on the platform over four years. At the same time, another from California claims to have shared photos, videos, and personal information with creators, unaware that the information was being disclosed to agents.

Who’s Behind This?

The complaint alleges that these chatters are employed by management agencies operating OnlyFans accounts and receive training and scripts. 

It asserts that OnlyFans is aware of this practice, citing the platform’s co-hosting of events with at least one agency named as a defendant.

The lawsuit further alleges that OnlyFans takes no action against these practices because it profits from a 20% cut of all creator earnings on the platform. In 2021, OnlyFans reportedly generated approximately $2 billion in revenue.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of OnlyFans users who paid premium content fees to creators represented by the defendant agencies using chatters. 

They are suing for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the federal Video Privacy Protection Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and California’s false advertising and unfair competition laws, along with claims of breach of contract and fraud.

This lawsuit follows a separate class action filed last year against Fenix Internet LLC, alleging an unlawful auto-renew subscription scheme that is difficult for consumers to cancel.