Apparently the 2 men became suspicious that the attractive models they’d contacted were not actually chatting with the gentlemen. So the guys launched a class-action lawsuit. Imagine having your job be to chat with people all day on OnlyFans.
Is that really any different than calling a phone sex/976 number? I doubt you’re talking to the actual person you saw in the commercial or on the billboard in that situation either.
Also, seeing one of the names listed as “J Fry” (like Phillip J Fry) made me wonder if it was an april fools joke.
This would make more sense if I knew what OnlyFans was and what a “creator” is in that context. I read the entire article, but it assumed the audience knew that stuff. It would also make more sense if they included any info about who pays how much to who for whatever the service is.
Some days geezering is hard work. Or at least perplexing work. 
It’s a way for creators and content consumers to interact with each other in real time. It’s commonly used for, what is essentially, live/interactive porn.
In this context, a creator is the person you’re looking at on screen that’s creating the content you’re consuming.
Just like anyone that has a youtube channel is a creator. MrBeast, Adam Savage, Linus from Linus Tech Tips, The Slow Mo Guys, Jerry Rig Everything, Rhett and Link etc etc.
Thanks all.
Thank you for making me think of them filming porn.
I would say that it is different. Those ads do not claim you will be talking to the model in the ad. If the content creator explicity promised that she would personally answer messages or use phrasing to make subscribers think she would even without making an explicit promise, then they have a case.
I was thinking the same when I saw Two Guys in the headline; they’ve been gone for years decades now
It’s one of those situations where I suspect the defendant is likely hoist by their own rhetoric, even though their rhetoric was implausible.
Only the gullible would fail to realise that some girl with a five digit following could not possibly be doing all her own messaging with her customers personally. But having read a brief summary of the claimants’ case including quotes from OnlyFans’ own marketing material it seems like they could have a case because that material heavily emphasised personal connection.
Here’s a long and acrimonious thread here that centers around OnlyFans:
Essay about this business model, for anyone interested. Link NSFW, given the subject matter.
Yep. there are now fancy terms for people who post crap on line. “Influencer” is another popular term.
Somewhat related-
Decades ago, a game called Guess Who came out. The television ad for it was misleading. Most kids who saw the ad thought the faces in the game could move and speak. The faces in the game are just stickers. I don’t remember whether this resulted in laws being passed or if the toy and game industries voluntarily added disclaimers. But after the public outcry, disclaimers appeared in commercials ‘Some poses require hand support’ ‘Multiple sets used’ ‘Toys do not actually walk and talk’
Before the internet, The Publishers’ Clearinghouse Sweepstakes was a big deal. The entry sent to consumers was deliberately designed and worded to make it seem like your chances of winning greatly improved if you bought at least one subscription. The odds were actually the same whether you subscribed or not. The company lost a class action suit over this.
Again, I would say the exact wording and design of the promotional materials and the contract are vital to the case here.
Here’s a version not hidden behind a “subscribe” prompt:
Earlier class action complaints are pending:
Five OnlyFans users filed separate class action complaints against the parent companies last July over “chatter scams,” with the case set for trial in 2027.
Which appears to be the same sort of thing as what prompted this thread:
Why is OnlyFans the defendent instead of the creators? It sounds like the agencies these creators use are third party entities not affiliated with OF. Does OF assume liability because they collect the payments?
The suit filed last year alleges “massive breaches of confidentiality” and “[blatant violations of] many of its platform rules and policies,” among other things.
Yeah, I don’t get that part. Did OnlyFans say that only content creators would be chatting with subscribers? What are the rules and policies that were violated? And how did OnlyFans breach confidentiality?
I could be wrong. If they lead subscribers to believe their messages would be read by the porn actress in question and only by her and they were actually read by people at a sub contracting company, that could be what they are complaining about.
I agree that that’s the likely breach of confidentiality, but is it OnlyFans that is saying the messages would be read only by the creator?
I don’t think I’ve found some secret way to absolve OnlyFans of responsibility; there are probably good answers to my questions. I’m just curious what those answers are. On the surface, it seems like the individual content creators are breaching confidentiality and deceiving subscribers. There must be something in the OnlyFans Terms of Service that is placing the responsibility on them.