SAN FRANCISCO — Meta is asking a California federal judge to reject the civil lawsuit alleging a conspiracy to blacklist OnlyFans’ competitors and their brand ambassadors.
The internet giant is also seeking sanctions against plaintiffs Alana Evans, Kelly Pierce and Ruby after the performers earlier this month withdrew their previous statements about alleged wire transfers between OnlyFans parent company Fenix International Ltd. and Meta executives.
On Monday, Meta filed a supplemental report in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California asserting that the performers’ disavowal is evidence that their allegations were “false and frivolous from the outset.”
As XBIZ reported, Adult Performance Artists Guild board officers Evans, Pierce and Ruby originally filed the civil lawsuit in February 2022, against OnlyFans, its owner Leonid Radvinsky and Instagram and Facebook’s parent company, Meta. The suit replicates claims from an earlier lawsuit filed on behalf of FanCentro in November 2021, alleging a conspiracy to engage in “tortious interference with contract and intentional interference with prospective business.”
Attorney David Azar of Beverly Hills firm Milberg Coleman Bryson Grossman, who is representing the group as the first three of a class involving all adult performers and content creators, is also one of the lawyers representing FanCentro in its related action against OnlyFans.
In early July, OnlyFans and Meta filed motions seeking dismissal of the performers’ lawsuit, alleging that the discovery process revealed no evidence of a conspiracy.
At the time, Fenix International also asked District Judge William Alsup to sanction the performers for spreading “frivolous allegations.”
Performers Formally Withdraw Allegations of Wire Transfers
On July 19, Evans, Pierce and Ruby formally withdrew their assertions about wire transfers made as part of their amended complaint and also “any statements that appear in briefs they have filed, or that were made during oral arguments, that advocated on the basis of the withdrawn allegations.”
Following the initial discovery phase, they told the judge, “Plaintiffs can no longer certify that the particular factual contentions in the withdrawn paragraphs and exhibit will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.”
Last Thursday, Evans, Pierce and Ruby urged the judge to reject Fenix’s bid for sanctions, saying “they presented their anti-competitive allegations in good faith after doing their due diligence,” legal news site Law360 reported.
“No one has explained why there was different treatment of identical content, or why that differential treatment does not support a reasonable inference that it resulted from a quid pro quo between Fenix defendants and individuals working for Meta,” the performers told the judge.
Meta: ‘It’s a Classic Bait-and-Switch’
In this week’s filing, Meta argued that the performers’ withdrawal of their claims about the supposed wire transfers was not sufficient, Law 360 reported.
“That is not how this works,” the Meta attorneys told the judge. “This court should not permit plaintiffs to breeze into federal court, level incendiary allegations that very senior Meta personnel were bribed by OnlyFans, and then simply say, ‘Oops, never mind’ when it is shown that those allegations were false and frivolous from the outset.”
According to Meta, the claims against the company by Evans, Pierce and Ruby “rise and fall on the veracity of their allegations of bribery” and were a basis upon which U.S. District Judge William Alsup allowed the lawsuit to continue. Meta attorneys are therefore requesting dismissal of the lawsuit or else an expedited summary judgment schedule.
According to Meta’s filing, “plaintiffs have litigated this case as a classic bait-and-switch: they made specific bribery allegations that allowed this case to survive a motion to dismiss, failed to provide or obtain any evidence supporting those allegations, and now seek to withdraw those allegations — all while seemingly expecting this case to proceed in some form. This abuse of the court system should not be permitted.”
