A class-action lawsuit filed yesterday in California alleges that adult creator platform OnlyFans engages in “bait-and-switch” practices that mislead customers. The platform offers monthly subscriptions providing “full access” to creators’ content, when in reality, most content is locked behind further paywalls.
When OnlyFans customers click “subscribe” to a creator’s paid subscription, they’re met with a pop-up promising “Full access to this user’s content” and “Direct message with this user” (along with being able to cancel at any time). For free subscriptions, the page simply refreshes when a fan clicks “subscribe.”
Credit: Screenshot: OnlyFans
This complaint claims, however, that “millions of Fans have bought subscriptions only to discover that, behind OnlyFans’s paywalls, Creators’ exclusive content remains inaccessible.” Rather, many creators only post teasers for content not included with the subscription, asking for subsequent payments to view. The suit also alleges that “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,” the complaint states.
Mashable Trend Report
Specifically, this suit — with over 100 class members — alleges that OnlyFans violated the California consumer protection law, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, which prohibits deceptive tactics like false advertising, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, a similar statute.
The plaintiff, Los Angeles resident David Gardner, says he paid to subscribe to two OnlyFans creators he found on X, only to see non-explicit “teaser” content. He also received mass direct messaging soliciting further purchases.
The complaint states that Gardner “would like to subscribe to different Creators in the future, but cannot rely on OnlyFans’s representations in choosing whether to do so.”
Mashable has reached out to OnlyFans for comment.
OnlyFans has been sued several times over the years. In December, a federal judge dismissed a suit claiming that the platform and management agencies were running “chatter scams” that essentially tricked customers into believing they were talking directly to creators.
