FantasyOnlyFans management agencies on the public record: every filing we could find, quoted
Agency websites publish almost nothing about their contracts. Court and regulator documents sometimes quote them word for word. This page collects every determination, complaint and docket involving an OnlyFans management agency that we could locate and open, with the sentences about commission, account access, payouts and contract terms quoted exactly, page numbers included. Findings are marked as findings. Allegations are marked as allegations.
Short answer
One regulator has ruled on an OnlyFans management contract, once. In August 2024 the California Labor Commissioner found that Unruly Agency, by messaging a creator's subscribers and negotiating sales on her behalf, was operating as an unlicensed talent agency, and declared her contract "illegal, void and unenforceable". The document quotes the contract: a 25% management fee on "gross revenue received through OnlyFans", account access provided to the agency, prices set by the agency.
One federal lawsuit names eight agencies at once. Filed by subscribers in July 2024, it alleges that chatters impersonate creators in direct messages, and pleads commission rates and contract clauses for several agencies, including a Creators Inc clause requiring creators "not to change [their] account passwords". Those are allegations in a pending case, not findings, and in December 2025 the court dismissed parts of the complaint with leave to amend.
No federal regulator, no state attorney general and no regulator outside California has acted against an OnlyFans management agency as far as we could find. That absence is on this page too, because it is easy to assume otherwise.
The one ruling: Stage v. Unruly Agency, California Labor Commissioner, 2024
What it is: a Determination of Controversy under the Talent Agencies Act, case TAC-52876, decided 20 August 2024 by hearing officer Sotivear Sim and adopted by the State Labor Commissioner. Petition filed February 2023, hearing February 2024. Respondent as captioned: "Unruly Agency Limited Liability Corporation". The document, 9 pages, at dir.ca.gov.
The contract, as quoted in the ruling
"On or about August 17, 2020, the parties entered into a written agreement ('Agreement'), where Stage engaged Unruly to provide the following services: (i) Facilitation of all content that is posted on OnlyFans; (ii) On a daily basis, Company will respond to messages on OnlyFans on behalf of Talent and work towards upselling products and content Talent offers on OnlyFans; (iii) On a weekly basis, Company will consult with Talent on what content Talent should produce" (p. 3).
Commission: "Per the Agreement, Unruly charged a management fee of 25 percent of all monthly gross revenue received through OnlyFans." (p. 3). "Gross revenue received" is not defined further in the document, so whether that means before or after the platform's 20% is not settled by it.
Account access: "Stage was then instructed by Unruly to open an OnlyFans account and provide access to the account to Unruly." (p. 3). "Account managers had access to the Stage's OnlyFans account and were able to upload content such as photographs and videos." (p. 3). "Stage testified that she continued to have access to the OnlyFans account so she could see the communications between Unruly account managers and subscribers." (p. 4).
Who fans thought they were talking to: "subscribers believed they were communicating with Stage, when in reality they were communicating with an Unruly account manager." (p. 4).
Who set prices: "Stage testified that Unruly negotiated the transactions with her subscribers and she did not set the price for her content." (p. 4). The agency's CFO testified that its current practice is to set pricing parameters with the creator, but "could not confirm whether that practice was in place at the time the parties entered into their agreement" (p. 5).
The finding
"Unruly is not a licensed talent agency, but styles itself as a talent management agency." (p. 8). "This daily communication to subscribers on OnlyFans is where Unruly transitions from its management duties of advice and counsel into the realm of talent agent procurement." (p. 8). "Consequently, Unruly engaged in and carried out the occupation of a talent agency. Thus, Unruly is in violation of the TAA because it engaged in these talent agency activities without first being licensed with the Labor Commissioner." (p. 9).
The order: "The contract between the Petitioner and Respondent is declared to be illegal, void and unenforceable and the Respondent is barred from enforcing or seeking to enforce the contract against the Petitioner in any manner." (p. 9).
What it means for a creator in California: an agency that messages your fans and negotiates sales for you may be a talent agency under California law, and an unlicensed one cannot enforce its contract against you. That is the doctrine the Labor Commissioner applied again in 2025 to a Twitch and YouTube creator agency, Pan et al. v. Inf1uence LLC, TAC-52870, citing Stage v. Unruly by name and ordering $224,764.50 repaid. Outside California, no regulator has ruled on the question.
The one federal case: N.Z. et al. v. Fenix International et al., 2024, pending
What it is: a class action complaint filed 29 July 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, docket 8:24-cv-01655, by five OnlyFans subscribers. Defendants: the OnlyFans operating companies and eight agencies, captioned as Boss Baddies LLC, Moxy Management, Unruly Agency LLC (also d/b/a Dysrpt Agency), Behave Agency LLC, A.S.H. Agency, Content X, Inc., Verge Agency, Inc. and Elite Creators LLC. The theory is that chatters impersonating creators in paid direct messages is fraud. The complaint, 127 pages.
Where it stands: on 12 December 2025 the court granted motions to dismiss and granted in part the motions to strike, dismissing the platform defendants and some plaintiffs with leave to amend, with an amended complaint due January 2026. We could not open that order to quote it; legal commentators who did describe the RICO and RICO conspiracy claims as dismissed for failing to allege a coordinated enterprise among the defendants, with claims resting on the platform's own representations to fans allowed to be repleaded. Plaintiffs' counsel is Hagens Berman. Everything below is what the plaintiffs allege, much of it "on information and belief", which means they are stating what they believe rather than what they have proved.
Alleged commission rates, by agency
- Creators Inc (the complaint's term for Elite Creators LLC together with Creators Incorporated): "takes between 20% and 30% commission on its Creators' earnings" (¶168(d), p. 64).
- Moxy Management: "On information and belief, Moxy charges its Represented Creators a commission of 20-30% of their earnings." (¶175, p. 65).
- Boss Baddies d/b/a Siren Agency: "a fee of approximately 30% of their earnings" (¶187, p. 68). This is not SirenCY, a different company that appears on our comparison pages.
- Unruly, Behave and Dysrpt together: "a fee of approximately 30% of their earnings" (¶201, p. 69).
- No rate is alleged for A.S.H. Agency, Content X or Verge Agency.
Alleged contract terms, Creators Inc
"Creators Inc.'s 'management services' include 'staffing [creators'] account[s] with someone to respond to direct messages on the OnlyFans platform 24 hours a day, seven days a week.'" (¶168(e), p. 64).
"Creators Inc.'s agreement requires its Represented Creators to provide the agency with access to their OnlyFans accounts, and specifically 'not to change [their] account passwords.' Indeed, the basis for the agency's breach of contract claim against one Creator was that '[b]y changing her passwords and blocking Creators Inc. from the account, [the Creator was] unlawfully attempting to avoid paying Creators Inc. the management fee owed' to the agency." (¶168(f), pp. 64–65).
Creators Inc's own website publishes no commission, no login policy and no legal entity; the complaint pleads that "Defendant Elite Creators LLC ('Elite Creators') is a Florida LLC registered in June 2022. Defendant Creators Inc. ('Creators Incorporated') is a Florida corporation registered in September 2022." (¶52, p. 16). Both names can be checked in the Florida register. Our comparison page has what their site does say.
Alleged practice across the agencies
"On information and belief, once a Creator engages an agency to operate his or her account, the agency takes over the Creator's account and operates all aspects of the Creator's account." (¶101, p. 39). "Without the Fans knowledge, the chatters impersonate the Creators when direct messaging with Fans." (¶102, p. 39). Access is alleged to be given "whether directly (by providing chatters with login information) or indirectly (via third-party CRM software" (¶110, p. 42).
On Unruly specifically, quoting two earlier state complaints: when creators protested, the agency's founders "claimed that [the Creators'] OnlyFans account[s] belonged to them, and threatened to sue [the Creators] if [they] did not continue allowing them to post and message" (¶209(c), pp. 71–72). Allegation, not finding.
One thing in the complaint is not an allegation but the platform's own rule, quoted from the OnlyFans Creator Terms: "We charge a fee to you [the creator] of twenty per cent (20%) of all Fan Payments made to you ... The remaining eighty per cent (80%) of the Fan Payment ... is payable to you (called 'Creator Earnings')." (p. 59, fn. 61). That is the 20% behind every gross-or-net question on this site.
State court dockets we located but could not open
No quotes, because we could not read the documents; case numbers so that you can. In at least one Unruly matter the agency contract was the subject of a motion to seal, which is probably why its terms are not public.
- Creators Inc and Elite Creators LLC v. Megan McCarthy, No. 2024-003685-CA-01, Miami-Dade Circuit Court, filed 29 February 2024. The agency suing a former creator for management fees.
- Lexington Capital Management, LLC; Creators Inc., and Elite Creators, LLC v. Elena Kamperi, No. 23SMCV01175, Los Angeles Superior Court, filed 16 March 2023.
- Creators Inc. and Elite Creators, LLC v. Ava Hinojosa, No. 24CHCV01901, Los Angeles Superior Court, filed 17 May 2024.
- Stage v. Unruly Agency LLC et al., No. 22STCV06689, Los Angeles Superior Court, filed 23 February 2022, the civil companion to the Labor Commissioner case above.
- Quezada v. Unruly Agency LLC et al., Los Angeles Superior Court, filed 23 February 2022, case number not obtained.
- Jane Doe v. Unruly Agency LLC et al., No. 21STCV26060, Los Angeles Superior Court, filed 15 July 2021, co-defendant Behave Agency LLC; docket shows a motion to seal a confidential contract (August 2021) and a settlement stipulation (September 2022).
- Machabeli et al. v. Unruly Agency Limited Liability Company et al., reported as No. 21STCV41395, Los Angeles Superior Court, filed November 2021, wage and misclassification claims. Case number sourced only from plaintiffs' counsel; treat as unverified.
- Bowen v. Unruly Agency LLC et al., No. 24STCV03569, Los Angeles Superior Court, 2024.
The first three are agencies suing creators. The next five are creators or workers suing an agency. Both directions belong on the record, and both tell you something about what to expect in a contract.
What is not on the record
A negative result is still a result. As of 11 September 2026 we could find no FTC complaint, consent order or penalty against any OnlyFans or creator management agency; no SEC matter; no Department of Justice action against an agency; no state attorney general action in any state; no labor determination outside California; nothing from the UK CMA, the ASA, any EU regulator, the ACCC or the Fair Work Ombudsman. Two prosecutions of individuals connected to "OnlyFans houses" were reported in the press without charging documents online, so they are not on this page.
California's Labor Commissioner is the only regulator that has treated an OnlyFans management agency as an unlicensed talent agency, and Stage v. Unruly is the only determination.
How to use this before signing
- Read the Unruly contract clauses above against the one in front of you. Daily messaging on your behalf, weekly consultation on content, a fee on "gross revenue received": if your draft says the same, you know what one regulator made of it.
- If the agency is in California, ask whether it holds a talent agency license. The Labor Commissioner publishes the list. An agency that messages fans and negotiates sales without one may not be able to enforce its contract against you, and may also not be able to protect you.
- Look the agency up in its state register and in the county court index. Both are free. An agency that has sued three creators for fees in eighteen months is telling you how it handles departures.
- Get four things in writing before anything else: the rate and its base, who holds the login and the two-factor device, where payouts land, and what happens the day you leave. Our pre-call message asks all of them.
Common questions
Has any court or regulator ruled on an OnlyFans management contract?
One, once: the California Labor Commissioner in Stage v. Unruly Agency, TAC-52876, August 2024. It found the agency was operating as an unlicensed talent agency by messaging subscribers and negotiating sales on the creator's behalf, and declared her contract void and unenforceable. The ruling quotes the contract: a 25% fee on gross revenue received through OnlyFans, account access given to the agency, prices set by the agency. No other regulator, in any state or country, has ruled on such a contract as far as we could find.
Is chatting on a creator's behalf legal?
It is common, and in most places nothing prohibits it. In California the Labor Commissioner has held that an agency doing it, and negotiating sales with fans, is a talent agency that needs a license. Whether it is deceptive toward fans is the question in a pending federal class action filed by subscribers in 2024; that case has not been decided. This page states the record; it is not legal advice, and the answer for you depends on where you and the agency are.
What commission rates appear in court documents?
In the one ruling, Unruly's 2020 contract charged 25% of gross revenue received through OnlyFans. In the pending federal complaint, plaintiffs allege 20% to 30% for Creators Inc, 20% to 30% for Moxy Management, and approximately 30% for Boss Baddies d/b/a Siren Agency and for the Unruly group. Those are allegations from one side of a lawsuit, and each is one creator's deal or an estimate, not a rate card. For rates agencies publish themselves, see the published commission page.
Does a filing against an agency mean I should avoid it?
Not by itself. A complaint is an accusation; a determination is a finding; a settlement is neither. What the record gives you is specifics to ask about: if an agency's contract has been quoted requiring creators not to change their passwords, ask whether yours says the same. If an agency has sued former creators for fees, ask what the exit clause says. The point of this page is better questions, not verdicts.
How do I find filings about an agency myself?
Three free places. The California Labor Commissioner's Talent Agencies Act determinations are listed at dir.ca.gov under DLSE, with each ruling as a PDF. Federal cases are searchable on CourtListener and the RECAP archive. State cases are in each county's court index, which for Los Angeles and Miami-Dade is online; search the agency's legal name, which is often not its brand name. Note what you find with the case number and date, and ask the agency about it directly.
Sources and corrections
Every quotation on this page was transcribed from the source PDF and checked against the extracted document text, with the document's own printed page or paragraph number. The California determinations list at dir.ca.gov was scanned in full for 2019 onward, 64 documents; one concerns an OnlyFans agency. The federal complaint was read in full; the December 2025 order was located but not opened, so it is described from two legal commentaries published in December 2025 (Eric Goldman's Technology and Marketing Law Blog, and Consumer Finance and Privacy Counsel), not quoted. State dockets are listed by number without quotes for the same reason. The cases have been covered by The Hollywood Reporter, BuzzFeed News (on the Unruly contracts, 2021), The Independent and Court Watch; none of that coverage is used as a source here. Compiled 11 September 2026.
If you represent an agency named here and the record has moved on, a dismissal, an amended complaint, a judgment, email contact@fantasyrise.com with the document and the page changes the same day, with the date noted. If you are a creator with a filing we missed, the same address.