Loading...
It's not exactly a big secret that some girls on OnlyFans user "chatters," but the law firm suing over it didn't have a good day in court.
A federal judge has dismissed a closely watched lawsuit accusing OnlyFans and several creator-management companies of running a widespread “chatter scam,” ruling that the claims, as pleaded, failed to meet even basic legal standards.
For those not in the know. An OnlyFans chatter is a person who manages and responds to messages on an OnlyFans creator’s account on the creator’s behalf. Their role is to engage with subscribers through direct messages, build rapport, encourage ongoing interaction, and often help increase tips or paid content purchases.
In an order filed December 12, 2025, U.S. District Judge Fred W. Slaughter dismissed all causes of action against OnlyFans’ parent company, Fenix International Ltd., and multiple management agencies, including Elite Creators LLC (Creators Inc). The decision clears the defendants of liability for now, while giving plaintiffs one final opportunity to amend their complaint by January 2, 2026.
The ruling represents a significant legal victory for Elite Creators (Creators Inc) and other agencies named in the case, which alleged that subscribers were deceived into believing they were chatting directly with creators when paid third-party chatters allegedly handled messages.
The lawsuit was brought by a group of OnlyFans subscribers who claimed they paid subscriptions, tips, and fees under the belief that messages were personally written by creators. They argued that the alleged use of chatters violated privacy laws, consumer protection statutes, and federal racketeering laws.
Judge Slaughter was unconvinced.
First, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish personal jurisdiction over several defendants, including Fenix International (OnlyFans parent company), which is based overseas. The complaint did not adequately show that those entities specifically targeted California in a way that would allow the case to proceed there. The judge also dismissed claims brought by non-California plaintiffs, citing OnlyFans’ terms of service.
More fundamentally, the court rejected the core theory that the alleged use of chatters amounted to fraud or racketeering.
“The complaint does not plausibly allege a coordinated enterprise or scheme to defraud,” the judge wrote, finding that routine account management practices do not constitute criminal activity under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
The court also dismissed privacy and wiretap claims, explaining that the plaintiffs failed to allege any real-time interception of communications, a key requirement under federal and state wiretap statutes.
Instead, the complaint described situations in which messages were accessed after they were received, which the judge noted is not illegal. Claims that user data was accessed “without authorization” were also dismissed, as the lawsuit itself acknowledged that agencies acted with the creators’ permission.
Judge Slaughter specifically found that Elite Creators LLC was not legally responsible for the alleged conduct described in the complaint. The plaintiffs failed to identify any specific false statements made by the company, any coordinated fraudulent activity, or any unlawful access to subscriber data.
Without details about who allegedly misled subscribers, what was said, or how the plaintiffs relied on those statements, the claims could not proceed.
“These findings confirm what was clear from the outset,” said Loren Washburn, general counsel for Creators Inc., which represents Elite Creators. “Operating a legitimate business is not misconduct, and routine, lawful practices cannot be recast as fraud through conclusory allegations.”
A key factor in the ruling was OnlyFans’ own Terms of Service. Judge Slaughter emphasized that the platform explicitly discloses that creators may use agents or third parties to manage their accounts and communications. The terms also clarify that transactions are between fans and creators, not OnlyFans, and that the platform does not guarantee how creators personally handle messages.
Because those disclosures were clearly stated, the court ruled that subscribers could not plausibly claim they were legally deceived.
In a related development, Judge Slaughter sanctioned plaintiffs’ law firm, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, and two attorneys for a combined $13,000 for submitting court filings that contained AI-generated “hallucinated” legal citations.
The judge imposed a $10,000 sanction on the firm and partner Robert Carey, and a $3,000 sanction on co-counsel Celeste Boyd, after finding that multiple briefs cited fictional cases generated by artificial intelligence tools. Boyd acknowledged using OpenAI’s ChatGPT to draft portions of the filings and failed to verify the citations.
Judge Slaughter denied the firm’s request to withdraw and correct the filings, noting that defendants had already expended time and resources responding to the flawed briefs and that further corrections would only compound the harm.
While the case has been dismissed, the plaintiffs have been granted one final opportunity to file an amended complaint. If they fail to do so by the court’s deadline, or if the revised filing does not cure the deficiencies identified by the judge, the lawsuit could be permanently dismissed.
For now, the ruling stands as a decisive setback for claims that the OnlyFans ecosystem is engaged in widespread deception. Simply put, the judge says that the platform makes it clear that some creators using it may use 3rd-party chat services or managers. That's not to say every account, but it's definitely something that the platform acknowledges and mentions in its terms of service.
© 2025 NSFW.Army. All Rights Reserved
