Case 3:22-cv-01101 Document 1 Filed 02/22/22 Page 1 of 39
`
`MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
`PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
`DAVID E. AZAR
`280 S. Beverly Drive, Suite PH
`Beverly Hills, California 90212
`Telephone: 1-866-252-0878
`dazar@milberg.com
`Plaintiffs’ Attorney
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`DAWN DANGAARD, a/k/a ALANA
`EVANS; KELLY GILBERT, a/k/a KELLY
`PIERCE; JENNIFER ALLBAUGH, a/k/a
`RUBY; and
`on behalf of themselves
`and all others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`INSTAGRAM, LLC;
`FACEBOOK OPERATIONS, LLC;
`FENIX INTERNET LLC;
`FENIX INTERNATIONAL INC.;
`META PLATFORMS, INC.;
`LEONID RADVINSKY;
`and JOHN DOES 1-10,
`Defendants.
`____________________________________
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Plaintiffs allege as follows upon personal knowledge and upon information and belief
`
`based upon the investigation of counsel:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This case is about a corrupt business gaining an enormous advantage over its
`
`competitors by wrongfully manipulating behind-the-scenes databases, and in the process, harming
`
`thousands of small entrepreneurs who rely on social media to promote sales of their product and
`
`earn a living.
`
`1
`
`Dangaard v. Instagram, LLC et al. Class Action Complaint
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`25
`
`26
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01101 Document 1 Filed 02/22/22 Page 2 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`2.
`
` Plaintiffs and Class Members are performers in the online adult entertainment
`
`business and anyone else (regardless of the description they use for themselves, such as influencer
`
`3
`
`or artist) who provided content to a competitor of OnlyFans and was harmed by the alleged scheme
`
`4
`
`(“AE Providers” or “AE Performers”). They make their performances available to consumers
`
`5
`
`through online adult entertainment businesses that provide websites and serve as platforms (“AE
`
`6
`
`7
`
`Platforms”). Consumers are charged to access the content, with the revenue split between the AE
`
`Platform and the AE Provider. AE Providers rely on interactions on social media platforms such
`
`8
`
`as Instagram and Twitter to guide customers to their pages on AE Platforms. Without the social
`
`9
`
`media sites, the business model for the industry is dead.
`
`10
`
`3.
`
`Collusion between certain employees or agents of Meta Platforms, Inc. and its
`
`11
`
`subsidiaries (such as Facebook and Instagram), and the OnlyFans adult entertainment business and
`
`12
`
`those affiliated with it, has had severe repercussions. The collusion systematically and
`
`13
`
`methodically damaged or destroyed the businesses of many competing AE Platforms and with that
`
`14
`
`unfairly harmed the livelihoods of Plaintiffs and Class Members featured on those platforms by
`
`15
`
`eliminating or reducing their visibility on social media. Some of those performers and businesses
`
`16
`
`were destroyed.
`
`17
`
`4.
`
`Up until late 2018 or early 2019, the online adult entertainment industry was a
`
`18
`
`vibrant, competitive market. That is when AE Providers that had promoted competitors of
`
`19
`
`OnlyFans suddenly began to experience a drop-off in traffic and user engagement on social media
`
`20
`
`platforms. The deletion and hiding of posts, and reduction in social media traffic for certain
`
`21
`
`providers, started to occur suddenly and was so substantial and so dramatic that it could not have
`
`22
`
`been the result of filtering by human reviewers of social media content. The business lifeblood of
`
`23
`
`certain AE Providers and AE Platforms appeared to be blocked so consistently that only automated
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`26
`
`2
`
`Dangaard v. Instagram, LLC et al. Class Action Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01101 Document 1 Filed 02/22/22 Page 3 of 39
`
`
`
`
`processes could be responsible. But performers associated exclusively with OnlyFans were not
`
`affected in the same way. As a result, OnlyFans began to grow incrementally, and then
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`exponentially -- rocketing up the internet traffic rankings -- and quickly became one of the most
`
`4
`
`dominant players in the adult industry, while most of OnlyFans’ competitors stagnated or saw
`
`5
`
`dramatically reduced traffic and revenue.
`
`6
`
`7
`
`5.
`
`The Complaint alleges that the Defendants in this action orchestrated a scheme
`
`through which they caused AE Performers associated with OnlyFans’ competitors to be
`
`8
`
`“blacklisted” by certain social media platforms for the purpose of reducing competition with
`
`9
`
`OnlyFans. “Blacklisting” is a process whereby social media accounts are identified to certain
`
`10
`
`social media platforms in a way to prompt those platforms to suspend or delete those accounts or
`
`11
`
`otherwise reduce their visibility. The blacklisting process was accomplished first internally at
`
`12
`
`Instagram/Facebook by automated classifiers or filters, which were then submitted to a shared
`
`13
`
`industry database of “hashes,” or unique digital fingerprints. This database was and is intended to
`
`14
`
`flag and remove content produced by terrorists and related “Dangerous Individuals and
`
`15
`
`Organizations” to curtail the spread of terrorism and violent extremism online. However, the AE
`
`16
`
`Performers blacklisted, and the AE Platforms injured by the blacklisting, were not terrorists and
`
`17
`
`had nothing to do with terrorism of any kind. The scheme was intended to destroy the AE
`
`18
`
`Platforms’ businesses, and either destroy the AE Providers or force them to work exclusively
`
`19
`
`through OnlyFans.
`
`20
`
`6.
`
`According to a recent BBC article, Meta claims it investigated but found no
`
`21
`
`evidence the shared hash database had been abused. Meta did not say the scheme did not happen,
`
`22
`
`just that it found no evidence of it and therefore the claim had no merit. Meta did not explain what
`
`23
`
`triggered its investigation or how it conducted the investigation. Plaintiffs believe Meta did not
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`26
`
`3
`
`Dangaard v. Instagram, LLC et al. Class Action Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01101 Document 1 Filed 02/22/22 Page 4 of 39
`
`
`
`
`investigate thoroughly enough and encourage it to make this information available for independent
`
`1
`
`2
`
`review.
`
`3
`
`4
`
`II. PARTIES
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff Dawn Dangaard is a professional adult entertainment performer. Her stage
`
`5
`
`name is Alana Evans. In this Complaint, “Alana Evans” refers to Plaintiff Dangaard. She is also
`
`6
`
`7
`
`the president of the Adult Performance Artists Guild (“APAG”), a federally recognized labor
`
`union whose goals are "to earn employee rights, set performer responsibilities, negotiate fair
`
`8
`
`practices, and help performers provide themselves with a better future." She is a citizen of
`
`9
`
`California.
`
`10
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff Kelly Gilbert is a professional adult entertainment performer. Her stage
`
`11
`
`name is Kelly Pierce. In this Complaint, “Kelly Pierce” refers to Plaintiff Kelly Gilbert. She is
`
`12
`
`Secretary of the APAG. She is a citizen of Illinois.
`
`13
`
`9.
`
` Plaintiff Jennifer Allbaugh is a professional adult entertainment performer. Her
`
`14
`
`stage name is Ruby. In this Complaint, “Ruby” refers to Plaintiff Allbaugh. She is Vice President
`
`15
`
`of the APAG. She is a citizen of Ohio.
`
`16
`
`10.
`
`Defendant Fenix International Limited (“Fenix”) is a private, limited company
`
`17
`
`registered under the laws of the United Kingdom and Hong Kong, with its principal place of
`
`18
`
`business at 4th Floor Imperial House, 8 Kean Street, London, WC2B 4AS United Kingdom. Based
`
`19
`
`on public information, Fenix also conducts business or has operations (directly or through
`
`20
`
`subsidiaries or affiliates) in the United States, Manila, Singapore, Tokyo, New Delhi, and
`
`21
`
`Bangkok. Fenix operates the OnlyFans AE Platform.
`
`22
`
`11.
`
`Defendant Fenix Internet, LLC (“Fenix Internet”) is a Delaware limited liability
`
`23
`
`company that is headquartered in Florida. On information and belief, Fenix Internet, LLC is a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`26
`
`4
`
`Dangaard v. Instagram, LLC et al. Class Action Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01101 Document 1 Filed 02/22/22 Page 5 of 39
`
`
`
`
`wholly owned subsidiary of Fenix. Accordingly, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, its
`
`citizenship is the same as Fenix. On information and belief, customer charges for the OnlyFans
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`website have appeared as “Fenix Internet LLC” on customer bank statements; accordingly, on
`
`4
`
`information and belief, Fenix Internet LLC receives, and is a conduit for, funds wrongfully
`
`5
`
`obtained and/or proximately connected to the tortious conduct alleged herein.
`
`6
`
`7
`
`12.
`
` Leonid Radvinsky (“Radvinsky”) is an individual who resides in Palm Beach
`
`County, Florida. He is the owner of the OnlyFans AE Platform, https://onlyfans.com/, through his
`
`8
`
`ownership of Fenix, and he controls Fenix Internet. Radvinsky is also the founder and owner
`
`9
`
`(through a holding company) of the cam site “myfreecams”; on information and belief, Radvinsky
`
`10
`
`also owns or controls “stars.avn.com.” Those sites are referred to herein as the Radvinsky-
`
`11
`
`affiliated sites. He is a citizen of Florida.
`
`12
`
`13.
`
`Defendants Fenix, Fenix Internet, and Radvinsky are collectively referred to as the
`
`13
`
`“Radvinsky Defendants.”
`
`14
`
`14.
`
`The Radvinsky Defendants are subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court
`
`15
`
`because (i) they operate, conduct, engage in, and carry on business in California and (ii) they
`
`16
`
`caused injury to Plaintiffs and to Class Members in California arising out of activities in California.
`
`17
`
`The Radvinsky Defendants are subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court because they
`
`18
`
`engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within this district.
`
`19
`
`15.
`
`Defendant. Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”) is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`20
`
`headquarters and principal executive offices in this district at 1601 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
`
`21
`
`California 94025. It is a citizen of Delaware and California. Prior to December 1, 2021, Meta was
`
`22
`
`known as Facebook Inc. It is the owner and operator of, among other things, two large social media
`
`23
`
`platforms, Facebook and Instagram.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`26
`
`5
`
`Dangaard v. Instagram, LLC et al. Class Action Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01101 Document 1 Filed 02/22/22 Page 6 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`16.
`
`Defendant Instagram, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Meta. It is
`
`the operator of the Instagram social media platform. It is organized under the laws of Delaware.
`
`3
`
`On information and belief, its sole Member is Meta so its citizenship is the same as that of Meta.
`
`4
`
`17.
`
`Defendant Facebook Operations, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant
`
`5
`
`Meta. It is organized under the laws of Delaware. It is the operator of the Facebook social media
`
`6
`
`platform. On information and belief, its sole member is Meta so its citizenship is the same as that
`
`7
`
`of Meta.
`
`8
`
`9
`
`18. Meta and its subsidiaries are vicariously liable for the acts of their agents and
`
`employees enumerated in this Complaint on the basis of respondeat superior, as the tortious acts
`
`10
`
`of its employees arose out of and are engendered by their employment, along with other principles
`
`11
`
`of vicarious liability, along with liability for its own conduct, including lack of internal controls.
`
`12
`
`19.
`
`John Does 1-10 are employees and/or agents of Meta and its subsidiaries who
`
`13
`
`participated in the scheme detailed below. Because the identities individuals are not currently
`
`14
`
`known to Plaintiff, they are collectively named as John Does.
`
`15
`
`20.
`
`Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that at all times
`
`16
`
`mentioned herein, each Defendant acted as the actual or ostensible agent, employee, and/or co-
`
`17
`
`conspirator of each other Defendant and, in performing the actions alleged herein, acted within the
`
`18
`
`course and scope of such agency, employment, and/or conspiracy.
`
`19
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiffs and Class Members were harmed by each Defendant, or each Defendants’
`
`20
`
`employees, tortious conduct as alleged herein, and each Defendant, is responsible for the harm
`
`21
`
`because, and to the extent, each was part of a conspiracy to commit the torts alleged herein by (1)
`
`22
`
`being aware that one or more of the other Defendants planned to do one or more of the wrongful
`
`23
`
`acts alleged herein, and (2) agreed with one or more of the other Defendants and intended that the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`26
`
`6
`
`Dangaard v. Instagram, LLC et al. Class Action Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01101 Document 1 Filed 02/22/22 Page 7 of 39
`
`
`
`
`wrongful act be committed, or (3) was responsible in its capacity as employer of conspirators for
`
`the acts in furtherance of the conspiracy taken by such employees in the course of their
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`employment. Plaintiffs allege that each Defendant, or their agents and employees, cooperated, or
`
`4
`
`agreed to cooperate, for one or more of the harms alleged that was committed by one or more of
`
`5
`
`the other Defendants as co-conspirators.
`
`6
`
`7
`
`22.
`
`At all times mentioned herein, a unity of interest and ownership existed, and still
`
`exists, among the Radvinsky Defendants, such that the separate personalities of the companies and
`
`8
`
`the individuals did not, and do not, exist, and adherence to the fiction of a separate legal existence
`
`9
`
`would promote injustice.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`III.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`23.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this action under the Class Action Fairness Act
`
`12
`
`(“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). There are at least 100 members in the proposed class, the
`
`13
`
`aggregated claims of the individual class members exceed the sum or value of $5,000,000.00
`
`14
`
`exclusive of interest and costs, and some of the members of the proposed class are citizens of states
`
`15
`
`different from each of the Defendants.
`
`16
`
`24.
`
`All Defendants have sufficient minimum contacts with California to be subject to
`
`17
`
`this Court’s personal jurisdiction. Defendant Meta and its subsidiaries have their principal place
`
`18
`
`of business in this District. Defendants Fenix, Fenix Internet, and Radvinsky intentionally avail
`
`19
`
`themselves of the markets within California through the promotion, sale, marketing, and
`
`20
`
`distribution of their adult entertainment platforms in this district, which renders this Court’s
`
`21
`
`exercise of jurisdiction necessary and proper. In addition, on information and belief, acts in
`
`22
`
`furtherance of the conspiracy occurred in this district at or through (e.g., via technology or systems)
`
`23
`
`the offices of defendant Meta and its subsidiaries.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`26
`
`7
`
`Dangaard v. Instagram, LLC et al. Class Action Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01101 Document 1 Filed 02/22/22 Page 8 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`25.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because Defendants
`
`Meta, Instagram, LLC, and Facebook, LLC are based in this District, and a substantial part of the
`
`3
`
`events giving rise to the claims occurred in this district (e.g., via technology or systems).
`
`4
`
`Alternatively, Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3) because Defendant
`
`5
`
`Meta is subject to this court’s personal jurisdiction, and there is no other district where this action
`
`6
`
`could be brought.
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`IV. FACTS
`
`A.
`
`The Scheme
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiffs allege that Defendants engaged in a scheme to cause performers who
`
`worked with competitors of OnlyFans – including Plaintiffs – to be “blacklisted” by social media
`
`platforms, including social media platforms owned and operated by entities other than Meta or its
`
`subsidiaries, for the purpose of interfering with those AE Platforms’ business and reducing
`
`competition with OnlyFans. “Blacklisting” is a process whereby social media platforms suspend
`
`or delete particular accounts or otherwise reduce their visibility. Blacklisting is typically
`
`accomplished by automated classifiers or filters that keep particular websites or pages from
`
`appearing on social media platforms or appearing in the results shown by search engines pursuant
`
`to user queries. Plaintiffs are not making a claim against anyone for the act(s) of
`
`classification/filtering themselves in the normal course by the social media platforms. They are
`
`suing Defendants for wrongfully causing their social media content, and that of fellow Class
`
`Members, to be identified for blacklisting at multiple social media platforms and included in
`
`training data for a “classifier” (a technical term referring to a learning algorithm that learns a
`
`model from training data) or filtering list used by multiple social media platforms and other
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Dangaard v. Instagram, LLC et al. Class Action Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01101 Document 1 Filed 02/22/22 Page 9 of 39
`
`
`
`
`technology companies. The identification for blacklisting is evidence of the scheme and has caused
`
`1
`
`2
`
`Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ to be damaged.
`
`3
`
`4
`
`27.
`
`This complaint uses the words “classifier” or “classification” in the technical sense
`
`as they relate to machine learning. Specifically, as explained in one article: “Classification is the
`
`5
`
`process of predicting the class of given data points. Classes are sometimes called targets/ labels or
`
`6
`
`7
`
`categories. Classification predictive modeling is the task of approximating a mapping function (f)
`
`from input variables (X) to discrete output variables (y). For example, spam detection in email
`
`8
`
`service providers can be identified as a classification problem. This is a binary classification since
`
`9
`
`there are only 2 classes as spam and not spam. A classifier utilizes some training data to understand
`
`10
`
`how given input variables relate to the class. In this case, known spam and non-spam emails have
`
`11
`
`to be used as the training data. When the classifier is trained accurately, it can be used to detect an
`
`12
`
`unknown email. Classification belongs to the category of supervised learning where the targets
`
`13
`
`also provided with the input data.”1 (Emphasis added.)
`
`14
`
`28.
`
` For ease of reference, throughout this complaint the word “database” is used
`
`15
`
`generically to refer to a collection of data and information and includes the training data used for
`
`16
`
`a classifier; when the context requires, the word database also refers to the database management
`
`17
`
`system and applications associated with them so that the term refers to both the data and the
`
`18
`
`program/application that uses it.
`
`19
`
`29.
`
`The AE Providers relevant to this lawsuit are adult performers who create content
`
`20
`
`posted on their accounts on AE Platforms. Customers are charged to access the content, with the
`
`21
`
`revenue split between the AE Platform and the AE Provider. The AE Providers attempt to drive
`
`
`
`22
`
`23
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`1 Machine Learning Classifiers, https://towardsdatascience.com/machine-learning-classifiers-
`a5cc4e1b0623.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dangaard v. Instagram, LLC et al. Class Action Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01101 Document 1 Filed 02/22/22 Page 10 of 39
`
`
`
`
`traffic to their accounts on the AE Platforms by posting on social media services, such as using
`
`1
`
`2
`
`their personal Instagram accounts.
`
`3
`
`4
`
`30.
`
`AE Providers drive traffic to their accounts on the AE Platforms by posting on their
`
`personal social media accounts, such as their Instagram accounts. One important mechanism for
`
`5
`
`service providers to establish and maintain connections with potential customers over social media
`
`6
`
`7
`
`is by attracting “followers.” Social media users may choose to “follow” any other account
`
`(whether or not that followed is promoting commercial services) by pressing the “Follow” button,
`
`8
`
`thus affirmatively requesting that they be notified when the followed individual has posted new
`
`9
`
`content. “Followers” may ultimately become paying customers on AE Platforms.
`
`10
`
`31.
`
`Up until the fourth quarter of 2018, the online adult entertainment industry was a
`
`11
`
`vibrant, competitive market with AE Platforms, large and small.
`
`12
`
`32.
`
`In October 2018, the controlling interest in Fenix changed ownership, with
`
`13
`
`Radvinsky acquiring 100 percent of the company.
`
`14
`
`33.
`
`Soon after Radvinsky’s acquisition of OnlyFans through his purchase of Fenix, AE
`
`15
`
`Providers that had ever worked with competitors of OnlyFans suddenly began to experience a
`
`16
`
`drop-off in traffic and user engagement on social media platforms (with the effects first appearing
`
`17
`
`for some AE Providers, and then seeming to expand to others over several months, consistent with
`
`18
`
`more AE Providers being targeted). AE Providers that used OnlyFans’ competitors as platforms
`
`19
`
`for their content experienced having many posts deleted by the social media services, other posts
`
`20
`
`being “hidden” from users searching for the sites and from users who had chosen to “follow” the
`
`21
`
`site, and the number of click-throughs from those posts that did appear on social media services
`
`22
`
`dropped drastically. This deletion of posts and reduction in traffic was most noticeable on
`
`23
`
`Instagram but on information and belief also occurred on Twitter, Facebook, Snap, and other
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`26
`
`10
`
`Dangaard v. Instagram, LLC et al. Class Action Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01101 Document 1 Filed 02/22/22 Page 11 of 39
`
`
`
`
`platforms. The combination of deleted and hidden posts led to reduced click-throughs and
`
`substantially reduced visibility for the AE Providers on social media. On information and belief,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`the effect on AE Providers appeared to extend as far as reduced visibility on Google’s search
`
`4
`
`engine.
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`34.
`
`The deletion and hiding of posts, and reduction in social media traffic for certain
`
`AE Providers started to occur suddenly and was so substantial and dramatic that, on information
`
`and belief, it could not have been the result of filtering by human reviewers of social media content.
`
`8
`
`Rather, the takedowns and other adverse actions and reduced traffic suggested that the social media
`
`9
`
`services were using computer algorithms that automatically classify/filter content without human
`
`10
`
`intervention. Put another way, the postings and traffic that were the business lifeblood of certain
`
`11
`
`AE Providers appeared to be blocked so methodically, systematically, and consistently that only
`
`12
`
`automated processes could be responsible.
`
`13
`
`35.
`
`On information and belief, AE Providers who had only promoted OnlyFans online
`
`14
`
`or the Radvinsky-affiliated sites, and had never promoted or affiliated online with any of
`
`15
`
`OnlyFans’ competitors, appeared to be unaffected by these automated takedowns and reduced
`
`16
`
`traffic. They did not experience the dramatically reduced visibility on social media that was
`
`17
`
`experienced by AE Providers who worked with OnlyFans’ competitors.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`B.
`
`The Success of the Scheme
`
`36. Many of these AE Providers had little to no previous experience being subjected to
`
`20
`
`such classifications/filtering. Effectively overnight, their traffic dropped without any apparent
`
`21
`
`reason. But OnlyFans’ traffic did not drop, even though OnlyFans was providing the same type
`
`22
`
`of content as its competitor AE Platforms.
`
`
`
`23
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Dangaard v. Instagram, LLC et al. Class Action Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01101 Document 1 Filed 02/22/22 Page 12 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`37.
`
`As a result, external links to OnlyFans pages became ubiquitous on Instagram. AE
`
`Providers were allowed to freely promote their OnlyFans pages on Instagram, and as long as the
`
`3
`
`AE Providers had only ever promoted OnlyFans on Instagram (or one of Radvinsky’s two other
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`affiliated sites), they were significantly less likely to be impacted by classifiers/filtering.
`
`38.
`
`As a result, OnlyFans began to grow incrementally, and then exponentially --
`
`rocketing up the internet traffic rankings -- and quickly became one of the most dominant players
`
`in the adult industry, while most of OnlyFans’ competitors stagnated or saw dramatically reduced
`
`8
`
`traffic and revenue. Within a few years, OnlyFans became the 129th largest website in the world,
`
`9
`
`the 86th largest website in the United States, the 8th largest adult website in the world (including
`
`10
`
`all free sites), and the 4th largest adult pay website in the world. The chart below shows the growth
`
`11
`
`of Only fans, measured by total web traffic as determined by Similarweb, from June 2019 through
`
`12
`
`June 2021.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`39.
`
`On information and belief, through online postings and anecdotal observation of
`
`Instagram, it appears that many of the AE Providers that were promoting themselves in 2018 and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Dangaard v. Instagram, LLC et al. Class Action Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01101 Document 1 Filed 02/22/22 Page 13 of 39
`
`
`
`
`2019 on social media have been deleted or had their visibility dramatically reduced on social media
`
`1
`
`2
`
`services, particularly on Instagram.
`
`3
`
`4
`
`40.
`
`Third-party traffic data shows that, over a two-year period of 2019-2020, AE
`
`Platforms that compete against OnlyFans were losing traffic sourced from social media while only
`
`5
`
`OnlyFans increased traffic sourced from social media. Examples of traffic losses experienced by
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`competitors of OnlyFans in the June 2019-June 2021 period appear below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`Dangaard v. Instagram, LLC et al. Class Action Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01101 Document 1 Filed 02/22/22 Page 14 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`41.
`
`The use of a classifier to blacklist AE Providers who had promoted, or affiliated
`
`online with, any of OnlyFans’ competitors, and thus to suppress traffic to OnlyFans’ competitors,
`
`was experienced on multiple social media services, indicating that the social media companies
`
`were sharing information about OnlyFans’ competitors and AE Providers who promoted or
`
`affiliated with them. Social media companies are allowed, under their terms of service, to control
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dangaard v. Instagram, LLC et al. Class Action Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01101 Document 1 Filed 02/22/22 Page 15 of 39
`
`
`
`
`content on their services, and they are protected in some circumstances from liability for removing
`
`content in good faith. However, the classification/filtering effects experienced by OnlyFans’
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`competitors can be explained only by the social media services’ reliance on one or more databases
`
`4
`
`– individual (to that service), and shared (among the services) – that blacklisted AE Providers that
`
`5
`
`had used OnlyFans’ competitors, and blacklisted certain AE Platforms that competed with
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`OnlyFans but did not blacklist OnlyFans or the Radvinsky-affiliated sites.
`
`C.
`
`Individual Plaintiffs’ Injuries
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiff Alana Evans has been a prominent AE Provider long before the events
`
`described in this Complaint. She had used Instagram to promote her Adult Entertainment content
`
`10
`
`on several different AE Platforms, none of which were associated with the Radvinsky Defendants.
`
`11
`
`By 2019, Evans had over 100,000 followers on Instagram.
`
`12
`
`43.
`
`Beginning in March 2019, Evans noticed that her followers were receiving many
`
`13
`
`fewer of her posts than they had previously received. She made inquiries on behalf of herself, as
`
`14
`
`well as on behalf of other member of the APAG, but did not receive any clear explanation of why
`
`15
`
`this was happening.
`
`16
`
`44.
`
`On January 24, 2020, Instagram deleted Evans’ account, so that none of the content
`
`17
`
`in her account could be seen, and she could not log in to make new posts. She had received no
`
`18
`
`explanation for why this occurred. Following complaints to Instagram from Evans and from
`
`19
`
`followers, as well as coverage in the adult entertainment trade press, the account was reinstated,
`
`20
`
`but the reach of her post was vastly reduced. For example, the publicity from the unexplained
`
`21
`
`deletion of her account resulted in an immediate increase of about 30,000 followers, but those
`
`22
`
`followers disappeared almost immediately afterwards.
`
`
`
`23
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`Dangaard v. Instagram, LLC et al. Class Action Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01101 Document 1 Filed 02/22/22 Page 16 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`45. While Evans remained a popular performer, so that increasing numbers of potential
`
`customers followed her on Instagram, the content that she produced was not served to most of her
`
`3
`
`followers. Evans now has almost 300,000 followers, but many of her posts are viewed by less than
`
`4
`
`2,000 users, indicating that the content is not reaching the vast majority of her followers. The loss
`
`5
`
`of social media reach has adversely affected Evans’ revenue, which remains lower than it had been
`
`6
`
`in previous years.
`
`7
`
`46.
`
`The scheme also affected Evans by causing competitors of OnlyFans, with whom
`
`8
`
`she had contractual dealings, to go out of business, thus forcing her to the OnlyFans platform. For
`
`9
`
`example, in February 2020, Evans’ AE Platform Provider, https://cams.com, was driven out of
`
`10
`
`business, and to remain in business she had no choice but to move some of her content to
`
`11
`
`OnlyFans.
`
`12
`
`47.
`
`Representative Plaintiff Kelly Pierce is an active AE Provider. She has worked with
`
`13
`
`several different platforms over the past decade, including Chaturbate and Streamate, and has also
`
`14
`
`posted content to OnlyFans. She began promotion on Instagram before that platform was acquired
`
`15
`
`by Facebook, Inc. (now Meta) in 2012. She had about 75,000 followers in 2021.
`
`16
`
`48.
`
`In about 2019, Pierce began to notice that her posts were reaching fewer followers,
`
`17
`
`leading to fewer click-throughs to her AE Platforms. She received regular complaints from long-
`
`18
`
`time fans that they were unable to find her posts on Instagram and Snap. In March 2021, her
`
`19
`
`Instagram site was deleted in its entirely. Instagram refused to reinstate the existing site, but it
`
`20
`
`permitted her to open a new promotional account after a few months. However, complaints have
`
`21
`
`persisted that the new account is often not visible to her fans, and she has only 6,000 followers at
`
`22
`
`her new account. In November 2021, her Snap account was deleted in its entirety.
`
`
`
`23
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Dangaard v. Instagram, LLC et al. Class Action Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01101 Document 1 Filed 02/22/22 Page 17 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`49.
`
`In addition to the account deletion, Pierce has also had numerous individual posts
`
`deleted on both Instagram and Snap. She believes that posts promoting content at sites other than
`
`3
`
`OnlyFans are especially likely to be deleted. As a consequence of reduced visibility on social
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`media, Pierce has experience decreasing revenue since 2019.
`
`50.
`
`Representative Plaintiff Ruby has been an AE Provider for over 30 years. In recent
`
`years, her principal platform has been sexpanther.com, and she also uses AE Platforms
`
`unfiltered.com and loyalfans.com, as well as OnlyFans and the Radvinsky-affiliated site
`
`8
`
`avnstars.com. She was never exclusively associated with OnlyFans or the Radvinsky-affiliated
`
`9
`
`sites.
`
`10
`
`51.
`
`Ruby has used social media to promote her own content, including Facebook and
`
`11
`
`Instagram, which she joined in 2014. She now has about 2,000 followers on Instagram. However,
`
`12
`
`beginning in 2018, she has experienced unexplained deletions of posts on Instagram, and
`
`13
`
`unexplained loss of distribution of her posts to followers, as well as reduced search engine traffic.
`
`14
`
`She has experienced a loss of revenue due to the loss of social media visibility.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`D.
`
`How the Scheme Worked
`
`52.
`
`On information and belief, individual and shared classification/filtering databases
`
`17
`
`i