"b) displayed a check mark next to Romelus’ name showing that he was “verified” and creating the impression he should be trusted;"

Not sure what express warranties OnlyFans makes to its customers, or regulators. But a verified checkmark in this context should obviously mean that the subject of the account, either is the administrator of the account, or that the administrator and subject are connected by express permission to administrate the account in the name of the subject.

That is, that a girl is uploading her own videos, and not that someone else is uploading the videos for them.

I could understand that in this case maybe the man in the video was verified. And it is the account that is verified, so if the girl changes in each video, there would need to be a per-video verification, or a policy that treats men and women differently with regards to verification, or some kind of third party verification.

Not an easy case.

Furthermore, there is the case or interpretation that the material is acted, but requiring verification and consent of third parties in uploads seems like a pretty standard requirement to me.

Not a lawyer, not a judge, but it seems pretty sensible to me that all parties in a video should consent and be verified by the provider, perhaps not on a per-video basis, but just add allowed subjects/actors, the first time may be a hassle and the next time would be easier. There's various types of consent that might be evident in video, consent to record, consent to distribute and consent to have sex obviously. I think it's unreasonable to ask for consent to be a part of the video or depend on the contents of the video for such consent verification. The begged question is, how many videos exist were the third parties did not consent to recording or distributing the videos? Logistically the mechanisms for consent for the distributor should be the same, there is never a dependency in the contents of the video to verify such consent, nor is there any expectation that the distributor will see the videos to verify such consent (although there may be an expectation to view the contents of the video for other purposes, such as verifying age or verifying that it contains the allowed actors) Such verification must occur off-band, not merely by analysis of the content of the videos itself.

Caveat, I do think OnlyFans is following regulations and goes in the right direction, fuck free "tube" types of sites, even after regulation. If you consume any type of porn, at least pay for it. Or just do whatever you do, but don't pretend you have the high road over those who pay and fund legal efforts to regulate this shit.

And if I take the focus off the rape, I apologize, but I think that general consent, in this case to record and distribute, is probably the only one relevant to the defendant of OnlyFans. Which is no small thing, being liable for distributing sexual videos without the consent of the subject. The fact that the subject was raped would be an aggravant, but the general technicalities of the case play out the same way as a consensual sex partner that did not consent to being recorded or distributed.

The court actually responded to this as this was a small part of the complaint, which I believe holds the most merit.

" (f) failed to enforce its alleged corporate policy requiring a signed release form showing consent by any third party (like Plaintiff) who appears in a posted video and "

the response was

"OnlyFans’ failure to enforce its policy requiring signed model releases didn’t add to the illegality and runs contrary to Section 230’s negation of the moderator’s dilemma."

I'll straight out say that I don't know what this means or how it plays out, but I will say that, even though the complaints are handled independently. Possibly the efforts expended on other complaints that had less merit took some resources away from this point. I think in the future sounder legal strategies will focus on this point, and case law will develop around vanilla failure to consent to record and publish, rather than lack of consent to sex (rape).

So that's my take.