CHI Company Investigation · Social Media
Fansly
The Bargain Holds Up. The Protections Thin at Termination.
Creator subscription platform · Subscriptions · Pay-per-view · Tips · Payouts
Standard company investigation · No score assigned · Research current through 5 October 2026
Fansly gives creators a valuable platform, and day to day it often treats them better than its Terms require. When it terminates an account for cause, those protections narrow sharply.
Fansly is a subscription platform where creators sell content directly to fans. Creators earn 80% of what fans pay. For its 20%, Fansly supplies card payments in a high-risk category, billing, verification, compliance, discovery and payouts. This page does not question that bargain. It asks what happens after a creator accepts it and builds an income there: what Fansly controls, how it behaves when ordinary problems arise, and what happens to the account and the money when enforcement ends in termination. At that point the company can declare the whole balance forfeited, some decisions are described as final, and no structured creator appeal was found.
Routine operation Often better than the contract
Chargebacks absorbed, warnings before bans, locked wallets released.
Fansly’s Help Center says it shields creators from chargebacks “in most cases”, and creators’ own reports agree.S9 For ordinary content breaches, creators reported warnings and short suspensions ahead of termination. Of 17 wallet locks reviewed that did not involve a termination, nine were reported released and none was reported as ending in permanent loss.S20
At termination As broad as the contract
Whole-balance forfeiture, “final” decisions and no structured appeal.
Fansly’s Terms permit it to “forfeit payment of any revenue earned by Users that violate these Terms”.S1 Fansly has told specific creators, in notices those creators posted publicly, that their account was closed, that the decision was final, and that the funds associated with it would be forfeited.S20
The issue is not whether Fansly may enforce its rules. It is whether the consequences imposed when enforcement escalates to termination are proportional, predictable and accompanied by adequate recourse.
01Why we looked
A creator on Fansly runs a business inside an account that Fansly controls.
CHI usually assesses how companies treat consumers. Here the customer under review is the creator: a business customer who buys hosting, billing, compliance and market access from Fansly and pays for them with a share of revenue. Fans appear on this page only where their refunds and chargebacks affect creators.
The question was simple. What does Fansly provide creators, what control does it keep once they have built a business on the platform, what happens when ordinary problems arise, and what happens when the relationship ends through enforcement?
The proposition tested was that Fansly delivers real value, but that the safeguards it gives creators are not proportional to the control it holds over their accounts, earnings and audience. It did not fail, and it was not fully confirmed. This page sets out both halves.
One rule runs through the page. What Fansly’s Terms permit and what the evidence shows Fansly does are kept apart.
02The economic bargain
The 20% is not the finding.
Fansly’s Terms state: “Creators earn eighty percent (80%) of the revenue generated on all subscriptions, sales, or tips related to their content and User profile.”S1 Its Help Center adds: “No hidden fees for payouts, processing, or currency conversion.”S3
Fansly keeps the other 20%. CHI does not treat that share as evidence of hostility. The creator is buying far more than file hosting, as the next section shows. The creator supplies the content and the interaction with fans. Fansly supplies the commercial and compliance machinery. Neither side does all the work.
Nor is profitability evidence against Fansly. A platform that scales well can earn strong margins while creating substantial value for the people who use it, particularly when its revenue rises only when creators’ revenue rises.
The bargain is legitimate on its face. The CHI question begins after it is accepted.
Once a creator has built an income on the platform, who controls the account and the money, and what protects the creator when something goes wrong?03What Fansly provides
What a creator gets for the 20%.
The later criticism on this page concerns how a valuable relationship is governed, not whether it is valuable. The value side is substantial and documented.
Card acceptance in a high-risk category
Fansly carries the merchant relationship for a category that card networks class as high-risk, with the registration and monitoring burden that comes with it.S23
Subscriptions in, several payout rails out
Recurring billing, tiers, pay-per-view and tips, with payouts by bank transfer, e-wallet or cryptocurrency. Minimums run from $20 to $100 by method.S6
A fixed pending period, reviews in days
“After each transaction, your funds enter a 7-day pending period.” Most payout requests are reviewed “within 48 hours”.S4S5
Chargebacks generally absorbed
Fansly says it shields creators from chargebacks “in most cases”, carrying ordinary fraud losses out of its own share.S9
Verification, consent and moderation
Identity and age verification, consent paperwork for co-performers, record keeping, content review, a complaints process and viewer age checks. S13
An established paying market
On-platform search, recommendations and an opt-in For You page. How many subscribers it delivers to a typical creator is not reliably quantified.S14
Where these commitments live. The 80% share is in the Terms. The 7-day period, the review times, the absence of payout fees and the chargeback protection are in the Help Center, not the contract.
04Where creator dependency begins
Everything a creator earns passes through an account that Fansly can close.
Account access, the ability to monetise, the subscriber billing relationship, payout release, compliance approval, content eligibility and continued participation all sit with Fansly. Its Terms reserve the right to “demote or terminate you, and to demote, remove, or refuse to publish your User Content, at any time, for any reason, with or without prior notice”.S1
That sentence first appears in the archived version of the Terms dated 2 May 2025. The clauses on forfeiture and on deleting an account “without payment” are first seen in an archived version from 8 October 2021 and have not changed in substance since.S16S17
What the creator controls
- How often earnings are withdrawn. Only the rolling seven days of pending earnings cannot be avoided.
- An audience outside Fansly.
- Working on several platforms. The Terms require no exclusivity.
- Source content. Creators keep ownership and their own files.
- Promotion of other platforms. Outbound links are allowed.
What Fansly controls
- Termination. Whether the account continues.
- Payout locks. Whether a balance can be withdrawn.
- Compliance determinations. Whether content and paperwork pass.
- Forfeiture decisions. What happens to the balance on closure.
- Access to subscribers. Billing, identity and the contact channel.
- Review outcomes. Whether a decision is looked at again.
The same contract produces very different exposure. A creator who withdraws often, works on more than one platform and keeps an audience elsewhere carries modest risk. A creator who relies on Fansly alone carries much more.
Dependency, but not a trap
CHI tested whether Fansly manufactures lock-in and did not find it. Fansly permits outbound links, other websites and competing platforms, its licence is non-exclusive, and creators retain ownership of their content. Fansly does not appear to trap creators by preventing them from building alternatives.
Some dependency remains. Subscriber billing relationships do not transfer. No subscriber or contact export was identified in Fansly’s Help Center or its publicly served interface code. Contact with fans runs through Fansly, so a termination can interrupt recurring income at once. This is structural platform dependency, not deliberately manufactured lock-in.
05Routine operation
Day to day, Fansly does not appear to operate as harshly as its Terms permit.
A reader of the Terms alone would expect a severe platform. For ordinary problems, the practice evidence does not bear that out: Fansly frequently mitigates the risks its contract creates.
Much of this evidence comes from creators’ own posts and from informal statements by Fansly staff on a public creator forum. Those statements are not Fansly policy.
The Terms permit Fansly to deduct “any monies earned on subscriptions, sales, or tips that resulted in a chargeback”. By Fansly’s account and creators’ reports, ordinary chargebacks are generally absorbed. Stated exceptions include an unusually high number of chargebacks and creator fault. In one fraud-related case, staff said Fansly deducted part of the sum and let the creator keep most of it.S1S8S9S20
Generally absorbedThe Terms require no warning. For ordinary content breaches, creators nonetheless reported a ladder: removal with a warning, then suspensions of one to seven days, then termination. The ladder is informal, and it is bypassed for the most serious categories.S20
Informal ladderFansly staff stated that a lock blocks withdrawals while a possible violation or missing document is checked, and that the creator can keep earning meanwhile. Where documents were supplied, releases are documented.S20
Curable in documented casesOne creator reported a balance of about $22,000 locked while consent forms for a large number of performers were reviewed. Staff cleared the lock after roughly four weeks and the creator reported being paid. A staff member wrote that locking the balance for that long “was not appropriate”.S20
ReleasedStaff reversed at least one termination they acknowledged was a mistake, within about a day. The creator posted Fansly’s email: “After a thorough review, we have decided to restore your account.” A near-identical termination a day later was not reversed.S20
At least one reversalOn 7 September 2022 Fansly’s official staff account said its payment processor “experienced issues recently which caused some creators' payouts to be delayed”. Its duration is unconfirmed.S19
AcknowledgedThe limit of this finding. Each of these mitigations is a practice, not a commitment. None is written into the Terms, and Fansly could narrow any of them without changing its contract.
06The termination boundary
At termination, Fansly behaves as its contract permits.
This is the central adverse finding. Fansly’s Terms permit “immediate suspension or termination of your account without notice, in our sole discretion” for any violation, reserve a right “to forfeit payment of any revenue earned by Users that violate these Terms”, and allow a creator’s account to be deleted “without payment”.S1 The Help Center says of permanent terminations: “Fansly reserves the right to forfeit or refund revenue to users affected by this change.”S7
Fansly has told specific creators that their funds would be forfeited following termination.
In two cases, creators posted the text of Fansly’s emails and Fansly staff took part in the same public discussion. One email read: “Unfortunately, our decision on this matter is final and cannot be reversed. Consequently, your account will remain closed, and any funds associated with it will be forfeited”. CHI grades this evidence as strongly corroborated. It has not been verified against Fansly’s own records.S20In both cases Fansly gave reasons, and the creator had breached a disclosed rule. In one, staff set out two earlier warnings and a suspension. These were not terminations without cause.
Other notices carry the same finality. A creator posted a Fansly email ending “This case will not be further reviewed or considered”.S20
The scope is the whole account. No notice, staff statement or case reviewed showed forfeiture limited to revenue from the violating content. One creator alleged that the item at issue had produced about 5% of the balance lost; that is the creator’s own, undocumented estimate.
What the evidence does not establish
- How often this happens. Fansly publishes no enforcement figures, so there is no denominator.
- That every terminated balance is forfeited. In three document cases, staff said the termination could be lifted once paperwork arrived.
- Where forfeited money goes. No evidence was found that it is refunded to fans, and none that Fansly keeps it.
- That terminated creators are never paid later. No such case was found, but paid creators have little reason to post.
Creator fault and legitimate enforcement
Many cases involved real or alleged violations: unverified performers, missing consent documentation, AI-generated content, prohibited sexual scenarios and other disclosed rules. In 19 of the 43 forum cases, the creator admitted a breach or Fansly staff stated one.
Fansly operates under unusually serious legal, consent, age-verification and payment obligations. It must be able to act quickly, and termination is not in itself hostile.
The CHI concern is narrower than enforcement itself. Must termination also mean forfeiture of the entire held balance, and should a final decision come without a structured appeal?
The balance at stake can include earnings that may be unrelated to the violation.07Money at risk
A balance is most exposed at the moment a creator asks for it.
In normal operation the path is short. Earnings sit in a pending balance for seven days. The creator requests a payout, Fansly reviews it, and delivery “typically occurs within 1–3 business days” once the payout is processing.S4S5
Normal operation
- Creator earns80% of the sale is credited
- 7-day pendingFixed for every transaction
- Payout reviewMost within 48 hours
- PaidTypically 1–3 business days
Enforcement
- Content or account flaggedSometimes when a payout is requested
- Wallet lock and reviewWithdrawals blocked; no published time limit
- Warning or short suspensionOr the flag is cleared
- Lock releasedAccount continues
or
- TerminationMay be described as final
- Possible whole-balance forfeitureDeclared in specific cases
- Informal support reviewBy email; no set process
Why payout timing matters
Fansly staff stated on a public creator forum that when a creator requests a payout, their content is reviewed for compliance with the Terms. In seven of the cases reviewed, the lock or termination followed a payout request.S20
That design has a consequence. A creator may publish content, gain subscribers and build a balance, and only on asking to withdraw may older content receive compliance scrutiny. Whatever has accumulated before that review is what is at stake during it.
There is no evidence that Fansly waits for balances to grow, and CHI does not suggest it. The point is structural: because review can happen at withdrawal, earnings already made can become exposed when enforcement begins.
Creators control part of this by withdrawing often. Where creators in the forum cases stated the sum at stake, the figures ran from $108 to about $4,500, with a median of $1,100. Those are creators’ own, unverified figures.S20
What is published about locks. The Help Center says a payout can be cancelled if “your wallet is temporarily locked”. It does not explain what triggers a lock, how long one lasts or how it is released, and no deadline binds Fansly.S7
08Appeals and recourse
Review exists. A structured appeal right was not found.
A company that may look at a decision again is different from a customer with a defined route to make it do so. Fansly offers the first. The research did not find the second.
What exists
- Internal review. Fansly’s notices refer to decisions being reviewed.
- Email contact. Creators can write to support or compliance and submit documents.
- Reversed errors. At least one mistaken termination was undone.
- Occasional staff intervention.
- Reasons in some cases. Including time-stamped evidence and a strike history.
What was not found
- An appeal form or formal appeal button
- A deadline for Fansly to decide
- A separate reviewer, or an independent one
- A guaranteed second look
- A published evidentiary standard
- Reinstatement statistics
The accurate statement: Fansly has informal support-based review, but no documented structured creator appeal process for account termination or forfeiture.
The gap was checked in the Terms, all 148 Help Center articles and Fansly’s publicly served interface code. None describes a creator appeal against termination or forfeiture. A process delivered some other way cannot be excluded.
Fansly’s documents do provide an appeal, but for someone else: a person depicted in content can appeal a consent decision, as card-network standards require.S2S21 One Help Center article, on non-consensual imagery, promises creators a statement of reasons and “your appeal rights” under a Trust & Safety appeals process that no article describes.S15
A structured route is commercially possible. The published terms of OnlyFans, which charges the same 20%, commit to a statement of reasons and point creators to named complaints and appeals policies.S27 CHI has not examined how those work in practice.
Formal disputes. No creator lawsuit, published arbitration or regulator complaint against Fansly over withheld earnings was found in the federal court, arbitration and consumer-complaint databases searched. Maryland state courts and the arbitration provider named in Fansly’s Terms could not be searched.S28
09What the evidence shows
Forty-four cases show the mechanism is used. They do not show how often.
CHI reviewed an archive of public creator-forum posts from August 2021 to October 2026 and built a case ledger. It identified 44 cases in which a creator alleged that money was held or lost on a termination, ban or suspension: 43 on the forum and one on a social-media platform.S20
These are counts of posts found. They are not incidence rates.
Fansly publishes no enforcement statistics, so there is no denominator: the number of creators, terminations or balances these 44 cases sit within is unknown. The evidence also does not establish where forfeited funds go.Of the 44 cases, CHI graded 12 as strongly corroborated, 23 as plausible but unverified and 9 as weak. None has been verified against Fansly’s own records. Posts whose text had been removed were not used.
The archive is not a one-sided complaint pool: the forum’s regular commenters mostly side with Fansly. It is also incomplete in both directions, because moderators remove account complaints, and any later resolutions go with them.
The record on locks without a termination is more favourable. Of 17 such cases, nine were reported released, lifted or resolved, the rest had no recorded outcome, and none was reported as becoming a permanent loss.
The dataset therefore demonstrates that the forfeiture mechanism is used. It does not demonstrate how often.
10What Fansly gets right
The favourable evidence, at full weight.
These findings are the reason the outcome is PARTIALLY SUPPORTS and not SUPPORTS.
- A transparent 80/20 split. The same share on subscriptions, sales and tips, stated in the Terms.
- No payout fees. And low minimums on several payout methods.
- Chargeback absorption. Confirmed by creators, not only claimed by Fansly.
- Fraud-risk protection. Ordinary payment-fraud losses are generally carried by Fansly, not the creator.
- Privacy and geoblocking controls. Down to the level of a city.
- Anti-piracy tools. Watermarking and takedown assistance.
- Competitor links permitted. Creators may point fans to other websites.
- A non-exclusive relationship. No exclusivity clause and no rule against competing platforms.
- A warning and suspension ladder. Used for ordinary content breaches, though unpublished.
- Balance-lock releases. Documented where the issue was cured.
- Error reversals. Including a mistaken termination undone within about a day.
- Reasons and evidence in some cases. Fansly identified the content or conduct at issue in several serious cases.
11What remains concerning
The concerns, and nothing beyond them.
Each item below is supported by Fansly’s own documents or by the case evidence. None depends on how often it occurs.
- Broad contractual termination powers. Termination is permitted “at any time, for any reason, with or without prior notice”.
- Whole-balance forfeiture is permitted. The Terms reach “any revenue earned” by a creator who violates them.
- Whole-balance forfeiture has been declared. In specific cases, in notices creators posted.
- No limit to tainted revenue was shown. No case reviewed confined forfeiture to earnings from the violating content.
- No documented post-termination payout process. Nothing published says what a terminated creator is paid, or when.
- Finality language. Decisions described as final or closed to further review.
- No structured creator appeal. No form, deadline or separate reviewer.
- An opaque strike threshold. The number of warnings before termination is not published.
- Reasons occasionally withheld. Some creators reported being told the reason could not be disclosed.
- Historically inconsistent processes. Staff described a document backlog in 2024 and a human error in 2025, and creators reported conflicting answers from support.
- A platform-controlled subscriber relationship. Billing and contact end when the account does.
12External constraint vs company choice
Outside rules explain why Fansly must act fast. They do not explain everything it does next.
Fansly is heavily constrained from outside. The law and card-network standards require it to verify identity and age, hold consent documentation, review content and resolve complaints quickly.S21S22S24 A platform should not be marked down for what it is compelled to do.
| Required or driven from outside | Fansly’s own choice |
|---|---|
| Verifying everyone who appears. Identity, age and consent records for every person depicted. | Whole-balance forfeiture. CHI found no law or published card-network rule that requires forfeiting earned balances as a penalty. |
| Reviewing content and acting quickly. Review before publication; complaints resolved within seven business days. | No guaranteed notice, and unpublished thresholds. The strike count that leads to termination is not disclosed. |
| An appeal for persons depicted. The only appeal the published card-network standards require. | No formal creator appeal, and finality wording. No outside rule prevents a structured appeal for creators. |
| Payment-processing requirements. Tax forms, name-matched payout accounts and processor content rules. | Wallet locks without published rules. No stated trigger, duration or deadline on Fansly’s side. |
| Content limits passed down by processors. By Fansly’s account, the source of its June 2025 changes. | Broad discretionary clauses. Sole-discretion and any-reason wording that no outside rule dictates. |
The June 2025 rule change
On 23 June 2025 Fansly emailed creators a set of new and clarified content rules and told them to remove affected content by 28 June 2025. Fansly attributed the changes to its “payment processors” and named no company.S25 The pressure is plausibly external.
Some of the rules were already in the Terms; others were new text added that day.S18 The five days’ notice applied to content already published, and creators reported inconsistent answers from support on the detail. Whether a processor set the date is not known. No account suspension, ban or withheld balance tied to the change was found.S20
European rules. EU law contains reasons-and-notice duties that, on their text, would cover EU-based creators on a platform like Fansly. Whether and how Fansly complies could not be established, and CHI makes no finding of violation.S26
13CHI assessment
Mitigated in routine operation. Confirmed at termination.
Fansly’s contract gives it substantial control over creator accounts and money. In everyday operation Fansly behaves better than that contract: it generally absorbs chargebacks, warns before it bans for ordinary content breaches, and releases locked wallets when paperwork arrives.
When it terminates an account for cause, it behaves as the contract permits. It has told creators that their entire balance is forfeited and that the decision is final, and it offers no formal appeal.
The mitigations are real, but each is informal, unpublished and discretionary, and staff were far less active on the forum in 2026. A dependent business cannot plan around protections of that kind. On the question that matters most to a creator with an accumulated balance, what happens to the money on termination, practice matches the contract.
Dependency Principle
The governing lens. Do protections scale with the dependence a platform creates? In routine operation, largely; at termination, no. Lexicon entry →
Dependency Stack
Tentative fit. Payments, audience contact, discovery and compliance status sit in one account that one decision can close. Creators can reduce this by working across platforms. Lexicon entry →
Responsibility Diffusion
Tentative fit. Rules are attributed to processors a creator cannot identify or appeal to. The outside pressure is real, so this is partly accurate attribution. Lexicon entry →
Exit Resistance
Tested and not supported. No exclusivity, no rule against competitors, outbound links allowed. Exit costs are structural. Lexicon entry →
A caution on these mappings. The CHI Lexicon was built to describe how companies treat consumers. A creator is a business customer, so the mappings are tentative, and none is used for scoring.
14Outcome
Fansly’s creator relationship is considerably more balanced in ordinary operation than its Terms suggest. The platform provides substantial economic value, generally absorbs chargebacks, uses graduated enforcement, releases compliance holds when issues are cured, and has reversed errors.
Once enforcement reaches termination, creators face materially weaker protections. Fansly has invoked whole-balance forfeiture in specific cases, some decisions are treated as final, and no structured creator appeal system was identified.
The evidence confirms that the risk exists in practice. It does not establish how frequently it affects the creator population, and it does not establish where forfeited funds go.
Why not a stronger finding? That would need verified cases or a rate, and many affected creators broke rules they could have read. Why not a weaker one? Because a rule breach does not settle whether losing an entire balance, with no structured appeal, is proportionate.
15What this means
A valuable bargain, governed loosely at the one point where the stakes are highest.
Fansly’s basic creator bargain is valuable, and its routine treatment of creators is often better than its contract suggests. The concern appears at termination, where the company has used broad forfeiture powers without offering creators a comparably robust, structured avenue of appeal.
Fansly is entitled to enforce its rules, and often must. The open question is one of design: whether a breach should cost a creator everything held in the account, with no structured second look.
16Methodology and sources
How this page was built, and how far it can be relied on.
Evidence base
Two research phases: a baseline dossier, then a verification and adjudication pass that controls wherever the two differ. Fansly’s Terms were read verbatim from its own site on 5 October 2026, with archived versions back to 2021. All 148 Help Center articles were proofed against the live pages.
Case evidence
An archived review of public creator-forum posts, with a case ledger held by CHI. Individual creators and threads are not named or linked. Forum text was read from archive captures, and later edits may be missing. Court, arbitration and regulator databases were also checked.
Limits
There is no incidence denominator. Nothing was verified against Fansly’s internal records. The destination of forfeited funds is unknown. Fansly was not a participant in this research and has not reviewed it. Staff statements quoted here are informal and are not Fansly policy.
How confidence is expressed. Statements drawn from Fansly’s own documents are made plainly. Statements that rest on creators’ posts are attributed to them. Weakly evidenced reports are not stated as fact, and posts surviving only as titles were not used.
Fansly Terms of Service, “Last Update: July 21, 2026”, read 5 October 2026: creator earnings, termination, forfeiture, prohibited uses, content ownership and licence. fansly.com/tosFirst-party
Fansly Complaints Policy, read 5 October 2026: responsive actions and the appeal for persons depicted. fansly.com/complaintsFirst-party
Getting Started on Fansly: the 80% share and the statement on fees. help.fansly.comFirst-party
Where Are My Earnings?: the 7-day pending period. help.fansly.comFirst-party
Payout Processing Times: payout review and delivery times. help.fansly.comFirst-party
Requesting a Payout and Payout Minimums by Method: payout methods and minimums. requesting a payout · minimumsFirst-party
Checking Payout Status: wallet locks, and funds on permanent termination. help.fansly.comFirst-party
Your Audience: chargeback protection and what creators can see about fans. help.fansly.comFirst-party
Creator Security FAQ: chargeback protection and its stated exceptions. help.fansly.comFirst-party
Promoting Other Websites: outbound links. help.fansly.comFirst-party
Privacy Settings: geoblocking. help.fansly.comFirst-party
Keep Your Content Safe: watermarking and takedown assistance. help.fansly.comFirst-party
How to Verify and Publish Content Featuring Others and How to Apply to be a Creator: verification and consent process. co-performers · creator applicationFirst-party
For You Page (FYP): opt-in discovery. help.fansly.comFirst-party
Reporting Non-Consensual Intimate Imagery: the statement of reasons and the reference to an appeals process. help.fansly.comFirst-party
Fansly Terms as archived on 8 October 2021, two captures twelve hours apart: forfeiture and “without payment” wording absent in the morning, present in the evening. morning · eveningArchived first-party
Fansly Terms as archived on 30 April and 2 May 2025: the “at any time, for any reason, with or without prior notice” sentence absent, then present. 30 April · 2 MayArchived first-party
Fansly Terms as archived on 23 June 2025, before and after that day’s change to the prohibited-content list. before · afterArchived first-party
Statement by Fansly’s official staff account, 7 September 2022, on a processor-caused payout delay. x.comFirst-party
CHI case ledger: an archived review of public creator-forum posts from August 2021 to October 2026, including informal statements by Fansly staff on that forum and Fansly notices posted by creators. Held by CHI. Individual creators and threads are not identified.Creator testimony, graded
Mastercard, “Protecting our network, protecting you”, 14 April 2021: adult-content requirements, including an appeal for any person depicted. mastercard.comCard network
Mastercard bulletin AN 5196, revised standards for adult-content merchants, effective 15 October 2021, as hosted by a payment processor. segpay.comCard network
LegitScript, on card-brand compliance rules for adult-content merchants and their high-risk classification. legitscript.comSecondary summary
18 U.S.C. § 2257: record-keeping for performers’ age and identity. law.cornell.eduStatute
404 Media, 24 June 2025, archived full text: Fansly’s 23 June 2025 email, its wording and its deadline. web.archive.orgJournalism
EU Digital Services Act and Platform-to-Business Regulation, Official Journal texts: statement-of-reasons and notice duties. Regulation 2022/2065 · Regulation 2019/1150Legal text
OnlyFans Terms of Use, “Last updated: August 2024”, read 5 October 2026: fee, statement of reasons and named complaints and appeals policies. onlyfans.com/termsComparator first-party
Court, arbitration and regulator checks, 5 October 2026: federal dockets, three arbitration providers’ consumer case files and the CFPB complaint database. CourtListener · JAMS · AAA · ADR Services · CFPBPublic records
The complete research dossier and verification report, with their evidence ledgers and register of points withheld from publication, are preserved by CHI and are not reproduced here. Fansly and related marks belong to their owners; the name is used only to identify the company, and no endorsement or affiliation is implied. This page is research, not legal or financial advice.
Reading this beside the rest of the index
Every company here is assessed against the same question. On Fansly, the customer is a creator running a business.
The creator is the platform’s business customer, so this page carries a disposition and no score. Read it alongside the methodology, the Lexicon entries it draws on, and the other Social Media assessments.