Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against OnlyFans For Porn Stars' "PPV" Videos
For years now, the majority of OnlyFans porn stars I’ve come across charge extra for videos sent via DM after you’ve joined their page, even though users are promised “full access” if they subscribe for a low rate (or for free), so I don’t know how many customers can still be clueless about the way creators operate. Also, hello, most everything we’re promised in life is a bait and switch! Ever been to an “all inclusive” resort? Ever purchased a home warranty? Welcome to the real world. Of course, there’s a lawsuit for everything in America, and one Los Angeles plaintiff has launched a class action lawsuit against OnlyFans after he claims to have been “scammed” with PPV videos after joining models’ pages on OF. The complaint was filed yesterday in California, and here’s a summary:
OnlyFans is the dominant global platform for performer-specific pornographic content. OnlyFans enlists individual performers to create content (“Creators”), and then sells access to that content to individual consumers (“Fans”). It boasts over 400 million Fans, and generates more than $7 billion in annual revenue. In exchange for monthly fees, Fans can buy subscriptions to Creators, which permits them to message with that Creator and obtain full access to that Creator’s content. The latter representation is explicit: when any Fan attempts to buy a subscription to any Creator, OnlyFans expressly promises that the payment will provide “Full access to this user’s content.” But millions of Fans have bought subscriptions only to discover that, behind OnlyFans’s paywalls, Creators’ exclusive content remains inaccessible. That is because numerous Creators—including many of the most prominent Creators on the platform—systematically refrain from posting any exclusive content. Instead, with OnlyFans’s facilitation, encouragement, and knowledge, Creators solely post “teasers” of exclusive content, and instead bombard Fans with automated “direct messages” soliciting purchases of their content for more money. Thus, the sole “benefit” of many subscriptions is the privilege of being spammed with offers to buy access to content that OnlyFans initially promised. In essence, OnlyFans promises a buffet, but provides only a menu. OnlyFans is responsible for this systemic bait-and-switch, which contradicts its core subscription promise to consumers.
Well, you don’t have to buy the PPV videos, but I can see how the plaintiff might have a case. Imagine joining Sean Cody for $25/month and then being told you need to pay an extra $150 if you want to see a specific video. If the OnlyFans model doesn’t explain on their join page that their explicit full length videos are an additional fee, OnlyFans could be in trouble. And to be clear: The suit is against OnlyFans, not any of the site’s performers.
The suit has more than 100 class members, the amount they’re asking for is over $5,000,000 (no specific number is stated, but I’m guessing it’ll be hundreds of millions of dollars in damages), and they’re demanding a jury trial. Read the full complaint here, and here’s more:
The reason for OnlyFans’ conduct is simple—OnlyFans understands that it has captured a market, has determined that PPV content is what maximizes its monetization, and has resolved to force its paying subscribers to participate in the PPV market, while also continuing to extract monthly fees that provide no meaningful value. OnlyFans’s practice eliminates any “benefit” of its monthly subscription fees. Subscribers to “free” and “paid” profiles alike must pay individual prices to access Creators’ exclusive content. No reasonable consumer would pay a monthly fee for the privilege of being spammed with automated solicitations to buy adult videos, but OnlyFans systematically and deceptively induces consumers like plaintiff to do just that. OnlyFans has breached its promises to plaintiff and millions of Fans, who spent hundreds of millions of dollars in subscription payments that amounted to unlawful and deceptive junk fees. OnlyFans is liable for breach of contract and for violating California consumer protection law, its conduct should be enjoined, and plaintiff and Fans are entitled to substantial damages.
OnlyFans engaged in unlawful, deceptive, and unfair business acts and practices by representing that its Creator subscriptions provide “full access” to Creator content to induce consumers to pay and use the platform while knowing, or at least constructively knowing, that its representations were false. OnlyFans’s conduct is unlawful because it violates California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code § 1770(a), the False Advertising Law, Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, principles of California contract law, including the duty not to misrepresent the nature of the consideration exchanged, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce. Indeed, OnlyFans’s conduct constitutes a classic case of systematic bait-and-switch advertising and pricing. E.g., 16 C.F.R. 238, et seq.
