LOS ANGELES—Fenix International Limited, the parent company of OnlyFans.com, was officially dropped last week from a class action lawsuit alleging racketeering and consumer fraud as it relates to so-called "chatter" agencies utilized by adult creators on the popular platform.
U.S. District Judge Fred W. Slaughter of the Central District of California issued an order through civil minutes that Fenix was dropped from the lawsuit entirely.
He wrote, "The court finds that Plaintiffs fail to adequately allege an enterprise and conduct in furtherance of an enterprise." That ruling was made in relation to allegations of a racketeering enterprise, which falls under the classification of the federal civil RICO statutes, reports Bloomberg Law.
"The civil RICO statute makes it 'unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity,'" Slaughter noted.
"The court finds such allegations insufficient because [the] plaintiffs do not allege [the] Fenix Defendants coordinated with [the] Agency Defendants or even knew of the alleged enterprise," the judge wrote. "Instead of alleging coordination or the formation of an [unlawful] enterprise, [the] plaintiffs merely allege that Fenix Defendants are marketing the OnlyFans website and that Fenix Defendants should be aware of the use of chatters."
In the initial complaint of the lawsuit, the plaintiffs also made claims under the state of California's False Advertising Law (FAL) and Unfair Competition Law (UCL).
UCL and FAL claims are often filed together because false or misleading advertising can violate both laws. Pleading both claims gives plaintiffs an overlapping legal theory and remedy based on any type of alleged deceptive conduct. But the claims of civil RICO allegations against Fenix have been dropped.
The defendants listed after the Fenix Defendants, the "chatter" agencies, must face UCL claims depending on whether an amended complaint by the plaintiffs is filed by June 9. However, the majority of the claims filed against the chatter agencies were all but thrown out via a filing from Slaughter issued in December 2025.
