OnlyFans Affiliate Dodges BIPA Lawsuit

An affiliate of OnlyFans has persuaded a judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed against the company under Illinois’ biometric privacy law.

In the case of Jane Doe et al. v. Fenix Internet, LLC, the plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Fenix Internet, LLC, the alleged operator of the website OnlyFans.com. The plaintiffs accused Fenix Internet of violating the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) and the Illinois Right of Publicity Act (IRPA) through the use of an automated age verification process. They claimed that the website’s age and content verification system improperly collected and used biometric information.

Fenix Internet filed three motions: a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, a motion to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens (a request to dismiss the case because another court or location would be more appropriate and convenient for hearing the case), and the plaintiffs’ motion to remand or, alternatively, for jurisdictional discovery regarding the citizenship of the putative class members.

Judge Nancy L. Maldonado granted Fenix Internet’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, citing that the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence to counter Fenix Internet’s claims that it had no involvement in the age and content verification processes. Fenix Internet was dismissed as a defendant, and the remaining motions were denied as moot.

The court found that the plaintiffs did not establish specific personal jurisdiction because they could not show that their injuries arose from Fenix Internet’s activities in Illinois. Fenix Internet provided affirmative evidence demonstrating that it was merely a payment processor and had no involvement in the biometric data collection or age verification processes, which were managed by its parent company, Fenix International Limited, based in the United Kingdom. The plaintiffs’ allegations and claims were not sufficient to establish a connection between Fenix Internet’s activities and the injuries claimed under BIPA and IRPA.

Judge Maldonado allowed the plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint if they could identify a proper defendant with jurisdiction and venue in the district. The court also emphasized that any further complaint must address the issue of anonymity for the plaintiff Jane Doe, following Seventh Circuit precedent that only exceptional circumstances justify anonymity in litigation.

The court underscored that plaintiffs must provide a good faith basis for their claims and satisfy personal jurisdiction requirements for any newly named defendants.

Source: Bloomberg Law

–

June 7, 2024 – by Cass Kennedy