OnlyFans Sued by Two Dudes Who Suddenly Realized They May Not Be Chatting With Real Models

Two men applied from Illinois A class of movement claim After the global smut scut peedler, after the subscribers were performed as an ego-predator because the messages they received from their favorite sex workers.

404 Media First reported In the court hearing, M. Brunner and J. fry on behalf of the two applicants. The court, the Fenix ​​Internet, LLC and Fenix ​​International Limited, the platform is aimed at increasing the widespread “deception” against the users of the site. “Bidders claim that the defendants were illegally and wrongly, and deceived fans on behalf of the” Tos “on behalf of the third parties.” This is also said:

Only “direct” relationships and “original” relationships and “original” relationships, only the original “relationships, which are generally rescued with individual interaction schemes that are not” original “. These schemes attract the deceptive outsourcing of interactions with fans, as well as other functions, to the third party “Management” agency.

Gizmodo just reached the documents for comment.

That is A well-known fact Models that do not speak to their subscribers in fact many. Prominent media have covered this phenomenon for years and have always assumed that subscribers have known this about business. As Garner adopts openly in court, it was subscribed to a model with hundreds of thousands of viewers. Based on the basis of tomorrow, what is a lady, resources, or more importantly, the most important will there be a will to respond directly to the messages of all fans?

Only the sites are related to the potential participation of third party companies. Indeed, the platform “Contract” “Developers” and “Supporters” DR: “Supporters acknowledge that third parties can help the creators of the creators and creativity.” The effects of the Bryner and Fry, Bryner and Fry, a fan-creative agreement such as a fan-creative contract, “as a fan-creative contract”, and the terms of use requires an additional activity to understand the terms of use. “

It says the relevant claim that the contract is on a web page in a different website and thus the user requires the user to click on another. Yes, how can you expect a company to read and understand the terms of the company when you are so hungry for the “original relationship” you can be with the starors advertised on the website? It is a good question, but it’s no doubt that it’s not a really problem.