A recent order from Judge Fred W. Slaughter, in the Central District of California, significantly narrowed a class action targeting the OnlyFans platform and several affiliated agencies. The case, which centers on allegations of fraudulent “Chatter Scams” involving impersonation of content creators, saw most claims and defendants dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or insufficient pleading. However, the court granted plaintiffs leave to amend.
Allegations of Deceptive Practices on OnlyFans
Plaintiffs, users of OnlyFans from various states, alleged that the platform and a network of agency defendants orchestrated a scheme in which fans were led to believe they were communicating directly with content creators. In reality, third-party “chatters” employed by agencies allegedly impersonated creators, using scripts and customer relationship management (CRM) tools to maximize user spending. Plaintiffs asserted that this conduct violated federal and state laws, including RICO, privacy statutes, and consumer protection laws, and constituted breach of contract and fraud.
Personal Jurisdiction and Venue
- The court found it lacked both general and specific personal jurisdiction over the primary OnlyFans corporate defendants (Fenix International Limited and Fenix Internet LLC), as their contacts with California were insufficient to render them “at home” or to show purposeful direction of activities at the forum.
- Claims against Fenix Internet were not transferred to Delaware, as the forum selection clause in the OnlyFans Terms of Service did not mandate exclusive litigation there, nor were claims brought solely against that entity.
- Venue was found improper for one plaintiff whose alleged harm occurred outside the Central District of California.
Section 230 Immunity
- The court held that claims based on OnlyFans’ own representations about authentic creator-fan interactions were not barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. However, claims seeking to hold OnlyFans liable for merely facilitating user communications were precluded.
Failure to State a Claim
- RICO and RICO Conspiracy: The court dismissed these claims, finding plaintiffs failed to allege a coordinated enterprise or common fraudulent purpose among the defendants, and did not plead wire fraud with the required specificity.
- Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA): While the court accepted that defendants could be considered “video tape service providers” and plaintiffs “consumers,” it found the complaint did not sufficiently allege disclosure of personally identifiable information (PII) as required by the statute.
- Privacy and Wiretap Claims: Claims under California’s Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) and the Federal Wiretap Act were dismissed for failure to allege that messages were intercepted “in transit,” as required by law.
- California Penal Code § 502: The court found no plausible allegation that defendants accessed data “without permission” by overcoming technical barriers, as required for a claim under California’s anti-hacking statute.
- Breach of Contract: The court ruled that the integrated OnlyFans Terms of Service, which included disclaimers and an integration clause, barred extra-contractual promises and disclaimed responsibility for fan-creator transactions.
- Fraud and Deceit: Fraud claims failed because the Terms of Service disclosed the possibility of third-party agents and disclaimed control over creator communications, undermining any claim of justifiable reliance.
- Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law (FAL): These claims were dismissed as they were derivative of the failed fraud and privacy claims.
Motion to Strike and Non-California Plaintiffs
- The court denied the motion to strike allegations regarding non-California plaintiffs as an improper procedural vehicle, but ultimately dismissed those plaintiffs’ claims on substantive grounds, finding their claims were subject to the forum selection clause in the Terms of Service.
N.Z. et al. v. Fenix Int’l Ltd. et al., No. 8:24-CV-01655-FWS-SSC, 2025 WL 3627591 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2025).
