Plaintiffs were OnlyFans subscribers who paid to communicate directly with content creators on the platform. They sued OnlyFans operator Fenix International and a collection of talent management agencies, alleging that defendants ran a coordinated scheme worthy of a RICO case, a federal statute originally designed to dismantle the mob, in which hired “chatters” impersonated creators in private messages to manipulate fans into spending more money.

OnlyFans moved to dismiss all claims, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction, that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunized OnlyFans from liability, and that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead their RICO, fraud, contract, and consumer protection claims.

The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. RICO, fraud, and most contract claims were dismissed permanently. The Video Privacy Protection Act claim survived against the agency defendants. Plaintiffs were allowed to amend their unfair competition claim against the agencies and two contract theories against OnlyFans.

Section 230 blocked claims premised on OnlyFans failing to monitor third-party communications, but did not shield the company from liability for its own affirmative representations promising fans authentic, direct access to creators. The RICO theory ultimately collapsed because plaintiffs could not show the kind of coordinated criminal enterprise the statute was built for, failing to allege meaningful coordination between OnlyFans and the agencies or a coherent enterprise that existed before the agencies themselves were formed. Fraud claims fell short under Rule 9(b) because plaintiffs did not specify which misrepresentations each plaintiff actually saw and relied upon.

N.Z. et al. v. Fenix International Limited et al., 2026 WL 1425183 (C.D. Cal., May 19, 2026)