Onlyfans Hit With Class Action Over Alleged 'Bait-And-Switch' Tactics

OnlyFans Accused of Misleading Marketing Practices

OnlyFans is under legal fire as a class-action lawsuit in California accuses the platform of using deceptive marketing tactics. The lawsuit claims OnlyFans entices users with promises of 'full access' but instead hides much of the creators' content behind additional paywalls. This legal challenge, filed under state and federal consumer protection laws, hinges on the accusation of a classic bait-and-switch scheme.

Los Angeles resident David Gardner leads this legal battle on behalf of over 100 customers who allege they were misled. According to the lawsuit, fans are drawn in by claims of comprehensive content access and direct messaging, only to find themselves navigating a maze of teasers, upsells, and mass direct messages urging them to pay for more content.

“Subscribers feel shortchanged when what they expect to be an all-access pass turns into an endless upsell,” said a representative from the plaintiff group.

The Allegations Behind the Lawsuit

The complaint paints a picture of dissatisfaction among subscribers who, instead of exclusive material, find content locked behind additional fees. Gardner recounts subscribing to two creators, expecting exclusive content, but receiving primarily non-explicit teasers and a flurry of promotional messages. The lawsuit insists that what subscribers experience is a constant barrage of sales pitches rather than the access they were promised.

The legal action argues that these practices violate both California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act. The plaintiffs seek not only damages and restitution but also a mandate for OnlyFans to provide clearer disclosures on subscription contents.

Monetization vs. Consumer Expectations

OnlyFans combines subscription models with pay-per-view messages and additional tips, a common practice in the adult content sphere to diversify income streams. However, the lawsuit contends that marketing 'full access' creates a false expectation that subscriptions include all content, rather than merely opening the door to more paid options.

With over 3 million creators and 200 million users, even marginal discrepancies in marketing promises versus actual access could have considerable legal and reputational implications for OnlyFans. As annual revenues soar past $1 billion, the scrutiny is intense.

Regulatory Concerns and Next Steps

Regulatory bodies in the U.S. have been increasingly vigilant about sales tactics that hide costs or provide incomplete information, often referred to as 'dark patterns.' These practices include misleading access claims and interfaces designed to guide users to higher-cost selections. While the courts will ultimately decide on OnlyFans’ case, similar frameworks have provided a basis for plaintiffs to argue that the platform’s pre-subscription messaging misleads consumers.

California’s aggressive consumer protection laws offer various pathways to challenge claims made during the checkout process. Central to the case is determining what a reasonable consumer would infer from OnlyFans’ on-screen statements, and whether disclaimers were clear and conspicuous.

As the class-action suit seeks certification, OnlyFans faces the possibility of significant changes, including potential refunds, penalties, and adjustments to its marketing language. This isn’t new territory for the platform, which recently saw success in another legal dispute over its account operation disclosures. Yet, the core issue remains – did OnlyFans’ marketing align with what subscribers actually received?