Addressing plaintiffs’ first amended complaint and defendant’s motion to dismiss, Judge David G. Estudillo, dismissed several privacy claims but allowed the VPPA claim to move forward.
Background: Plaintiffs alleged that OnlyFans and various management agencies deceived subscribers into believing they were directly communicating with content creators when, in reality, paid “Chatters” impersonated creators and convinced users to spend more money on the website. Plaintiffs alleged the “Chatter Scams” involved breaches of confidentiality and privacy violations because unauthorized parties could access intimate communications, photos, and personal information. According to the complaint, agencies used chatters, customer-management software, and scripted interactions while OnlyFans promoted “authentic” creator-fan relationships as a core feature of the platform. Plaintiffs asserted 47 U.S.C. § 230, RICO, VPPA, contract, fraud, UCL, and related claims.
Analysis: The court dismissed the RICO and RICO conspiracy claims, finding plaintiffs still failed to adequately allege coordination, a common enterprise, or sufficiently particularized predicate acts. It also dismissed the VPPA claim against OnlyFans, concluding plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that OnlyFans knowingly disclosed personally identifiable information and that the allegations relied largely on OnlyFans’ role in facilitating communications. By contrast, the court allowed the VPPA claim to proceed against the agency defendants, finding plaintiffs plausibly alleged that agencies provided Chatters with account access and thereby disclosed subscriber communications and identifying information. The court also rejected several jurisdictional and venue challenges and held that Section 230 did not bar claims based on OnlyFans’ own alleged representations regarding direct creator-fan communications.
Significance: The decision distinguishes between a platform’s alleged role in facilitating communications and allegations that third-party agencies actually accessed and disclosed subscriber information. It also demonstrates the difficulty of transforming alleged online-deception schemes into civil RICO claims absent detailed allegations showing coordination, enterprise structure, and predicate acts.
Liss v. Skechers USA Inc., No. 3:25-CV-05861-DGE, 2026 WL 1392327 (W.D. Wash. May 19, 2026).
