I love the concept of OnlyFans. It has empowered an entire generation of performers to take control of their image and make their own money. It allows them to avoid having to deal with predatory agents and producers because they don’t have to be on a set if they don’t want to be.

But all that glitters isn’t golden, as the saying goes … because as OnlyFans becomes more popular, more and more management agencies pop up, and they give a whole new meaning to the term predatory. Not all, but many of these agencies are next-level predatory pimps.

OnlyFans has a rule that says you are responsible for your own account so if you use a management agency this disavow all knowledge of such a thing and anything that agency does wrong on your account is on you.

The problem with some OnlyFans management agencies is that they are in it to make you the most money they can because the more money you make, the more money they make. They don’t have an interest in establishing long-term relationships with your fan base, which, over time, can have big returns for you. They care about the here and now. It’s a numbers game to them – churn and burn in the name of the game for most of these guys.

One particular OnlyFans management company is being sued by a creator because they came up with what they thought was a brilliant idea to make more money on a girls account. They either stated or, at the very least, implied the content featured the creator when she was underage.

Aaliyah Jones, a content creator, has filed a lawsuit against Bluresca, LLC, alleging breach of contract, defamation, and negligence. The case, heard in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, stems from an agreement Jones entered into with Bluresca in 2022. This agreement involved Jones creating content for social media platforms, including OnlyFans, which Bluresca was supposed to promote. However, Jones claims Bluresca’s actions led to her being banned from OnlyFans, causing significant financial harm.

In 2022, Jones and Bluresca entered into a marketing agreement where Bluresca would manage and promote Jones’s social media accounts, including OnlyFans, in exchange for 60% of her earnings. The agreement also involved Bluresca growing Jones’s follower base through promotional activities, which would increase her income from subscription-based platforms.

Despite initially investing resources into promoting Jones’s accounts, Bluresca allegedly decreased its efforts over time. Jones noticed a drastic reduction in Bluresca’s financial investment and questioned their level of support.

According to the lawsuit, Bluresca admitted to not tracking expenditure on a per-model basis, buying ads in bulk instead. Nevertheless, Jones was able to grow her subscriber base on her own from 100 to approximately 33,000 followers.

A critical point in the lawsuit revolves around an incident where Jones was banned from OnlyFans in September 2023. This ban resulted from a post on her account suggesting she was underage, a claim that would be in direct violation of OnlyFans’ policies. Jones had previously verified her age with Bluresca, providing a driver’s license to prove she was over 18.

Jones alleges that Bluresca was responsible for managing her OnlyFans account at the time of the post, which led to her ban. According to the complaint, Bluresca knew which post triggered the ban but provided Jones with misleading information about it. Communications with Bluresca personnel suggested they were aware of the situation but failed to take corrective action, resulting in Jones’s permanent ban from OnlyFans.

Jones filed the lawsuit against Bluresca for breach of contract, defamation, and negligence:

1. Breach of Contract: Jones argues that Bluresca breached the marketing agreement in two ways: failing to invest the promised financial resources to promote her accounts and posting content that falsely suggested she was underage. The court dismissed the claim related to the lack of financial investment, citing that the marketing agreement allowed Bluresca discretion in its promotional activities. However, the court allowed the claim regarding the underage post to proceed, as it could be seen as a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in every contract.
2. Defamation: Jones claims that Bluresca defamed her by posting content suggesting she was underage, damaging her professional image. However, the court dismissed this claim due to Jones’s failure to specify the defamatory statement, who made it, and when it was made. Jones was given leave to amend this part of her complaint.
3. Negligence: The court dismissed Jones’s negligence claim, stating it was duplicative of the breach of contract claim since Jones did not allege a duty separate from the contract.

While this case continues to make its way through the court system, it’s time to really stop and ask yourself how much you are paying attention to what the management agency you work with (if any) is doing on your account.

It might be time to take a look and make sure they aren’t doing something that they shouldn’t. After all, it is your account, and ultimately, anything they might do will be your responsibility.