Skip to content 
A high-profile class action lawsuit against OnlyFans has taken an unexpected turn after defense filings accused plaintiffs’ lawyers of submitting briefs that contained fabricated case citations and quotations generated by artificial intelligence tools.
OnlyFans Court Filings Flag AI-Generated Legal Errors
According to filings in N.Z. v. Fenix International Ltd., defendant OnlyFans alleged that plaintiffs’ counsel repeatedly relied on “AI-hallucinated” case law to oppose procedural motions. In a brief filed last week, Skadden Arps attorneys stated that plaintiffs’ counsel attributed false quotations or holdings to at least 11 different cases.The filing argued that this was not an isolated mistake but a recurring problem.
“This is the third distinct filing over a monthlong period in which Plaintiffs have used non-existent quotations to attempt to defeat Fenix’s requests for relief,” the defense wrote. The brief described the submissions as “an abuse of the judicial system” that wasted court resources.Defense counsel urged the court to disregard the plaintiffs’ arguments, contending that the citations and invented holdings had no legal basis.
Plaintiffs Acknowledge Flawed Briefs
In response, Robert Carey, a partner at Hagens Berman representing the plaintiffs, issued a statement acknowledging errors in the filings. Speaking to Law.com, Carey said that parts of the briefs were drafted by co-counsel outside his firm.“Our review did not catch those errors, and we take responsibility for that oversight. It should not have happened,” Carey stated. He explained that quotation marks were improperly placed on real cases and that at least one citation referred to a non-existent case.
Carey noted that the work in question had come from a longtime colleague—a Yale Law School graduate—who was experiencing a family crisis while caring for her terminally ill father. “While managing his care from afar, she did not share with us how overwhelming the situation had become. Under that strain, she turned to an AI tool to help polish her drafts, not realizing that in doing so, the tool had introduced or altered citations and text,” he said.Because the drafts arrived late, Carey explained, the firm’s normal review protocols were not fully applied. He added that corrective briefs would be filed to remove the inappropriate material and explain the circumstances to the court.
Firm Promises Corrective Action and Apology
Carey further acknowledged the seriousness of the matter during a phone interview, emphasizing the firm’s responsibility regardless of the circumstances. “It’s a mistake. It shouldn’t have happened. It’s our responsibility to make sure briefs are right no matter who puts the sections together,” he said.
He described the attorney who submitted the flawed sections as a “trusted colleague” with over a decade of high-level legal writing experience. Carey admitted that the firm initially did not believe it necessary to recheck her work. “But again, a lesson learned,” he said, pledging to apologize to both the court and opposing counsel.
Allegations Behind the OnlyFans Class Action
The underlying lawsuit, filed by Hagens Berman on behalf of plaintiffs, accuses OnlyFans of facilitating deceptive practices that misled subscribers. The complaint alleges that millions of paying users—known as “Fans”—were encouraged to believe they were communicating directly with specific content creators on the platform.Instead, the lawsuit claims, many interactions were conducted by professional “chatters” employed by management agencies.
These agencies, often based in countries like the Philippines and Venezuela, allegedly hired large teams to impersonate creators and convince fans to spend more money.The complaint describes this practice as “Chatter Scams,” characterizing them as fraudulent, deceptive, and invasive of user privacy. It further alleges that OnlyFans was aware of the agencies’ involvement and had even co-hosted events with at least one named defendant.
Privacy and Fraud Claims at the Center
Beyond claims of financial deception, the lawsuit highlights serious privacy concerns. Plaintiffs argue that intimate communications, photos, and personal details shared by fans were often distributed to or accessed by unauthorized third parties, violating confidentiality.“Chatter Scams involve massive breaches of confidentiality and privacy violations in which intimate communications and private and/or personal information about Fans including photos and videos are distributed and/or accessible to numerous unauthorized parties,” the complaint stated.The plaintiffs allege that OnlyFans benefitted financially from these practices, which inflated user spending under false pretenses.
While the substance of the case focuses on consumer fraud and privacy violations, the spotlight has shifted to the integrity of plaintiffs’ filings. Skadden Arps argued that the reliance on fabricated case law tainted the plaintiffs’ briefs and undermined the judicial process.The defense accused plaintiffs’ counsel of attempting to bolster weak arguments with false authorities rather than genuine precedent. In its filing, the firm highlighted at least 20 instances of imaginary case law, misquoted language, and mischaracterized holdings.
Broader Implications for Legal Practice
The controversy underscores growing concerns about the role of AI tools in legal work. Courts across the United States have increasingly cautioned attorneys about unverified reliance on AI-generated text, following several high-profile cases of fabricated citations appearing in court filings.Carey acknowledged that while the co-counsel in question initially relied on AI only to refine draft sections, the tool ultimately altered substantive content in ways that escaped detection. He stressed that Hagens Berman had filed thousands of briefs without such issues, but vowed to implement stricter safeguards going forward.The plaintiffs’ legal team plans to submit corrected briefs and formally explain the matter to the court.
Carey said the firm will continue to pursue the claims on behalf of OnlyFans users while addressing the errors.The defense, meanwhile, is pressing the court to disregard the tainted briefs and move forward on its motions, including challenges to jurisdiction under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.As the case develops, the dispute over AI-generated filings has added an unexpected dimension to one of the most closely watched lawsuits involving OnlyFans, raising questions not only about the platform’s alleged conduct but also about the evolving intersection of technology and legal ethics.
