SAN FRANCISCO—A panel of three judges on the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has revived a lawsuit filed by two John Doe plaintiffs against Fenix International Limited, the parent company of the multi-billion-dollar online platform OnlyFans.com, for violations of a sweeping California law that clamps down on auto-renewing subscription services.
In an unpublished memorandum disposition issued on June 30, the panel reversed and remanded a federal district court's dismissal of a putative class action complaint because the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Fenix's conduct in California under the state's unfair competition law.
AVN reported in September 2024 that the state's unfair competition law was amended to reflect the passage of the so-called California Automatic Renewal Law (CARL).
This law requires that businesses offering subscriptions, free trials and recurring payments for digital services and products must obtain "explicit affirmative consent" and provide "clear disclosures" about how users can easily cancel digital services. This measure directly impacts adult websites with recurring subscription models.
The suing parties, two consumers, took issue with how recurring payments and subscriptions function on the OnlyFans platform.
Plaintiffs allege that OnlyFans failed to formulate a clear user experience to obtain the "consumer's affirmative consent to the agreement containing automatic renewal terms," notes the judge in the order granting Fenix's motion to dismiss, which was issued in April 2025. U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer of the Northern District of California issued the ruling, indicating that he agreed with the defendants that because Fenix is a company headquartered in London, United Kingdom, there was absolutely no jurisdiction.
"We conclude that Plaintiffs established that Fenix expressly aimed its conduct at California," the three appellate judges ruled. "Because the district court concluded to the contrary, we vacate and remand for further proceedings. [...] Fenix’s arguments that it did not aim any conduct at California ignore that it regularly fulfills users’ subscriptions wherever those users access its online content, including California."
This means that the case will return to Breyer's court for further consideration on personal jurisdiction. As such, the case is ultimately revived, meaning that it can advance. A ruling against the parent company of Fenix could have a potential impact on the entire creator economy built on the framework of the OnlyFans.com ecosystem and competitor platforms.
If the CARL claims hold, Fenix and the millions of adult content creators who use OnlyFans could be subject to an entirely new subscription framework. The California Automatic Renewal Law requires several compliance interventions.
These include adopting transparent billing and subscription procedures and ensuring users are fully informed to grant express consent.
Users must also be notified of fee changes and other changes to the user agreement or any other applicable conditions of the subscription. User experiences for renewals and cancellations need to be simplified and intuitive. This means that canceling subscriptions must be simple and effective.
