AI-Generated Porn … Litigation Filings (from a Prominent Plaintiffs' Class Action Firm in Lawsuit Against OnlyFans)

From Skadden Arps filing in N.Z. v. Fenix Int'l Ltd. last week, involving a class action against OnlyFans:

Plaintiffs' Opposition … cites 18 cases in attempting to argue that the Court should decline to partially reconsider its FNC [forum non conveniens] Order, or certify an interlocutory appeal, in response to the California Supreme Court's recent decision in EpicentRx, Inc. v. Superior Court (Cal. 2025). As discussed in detail below and in the accompanying Declaration of Or-el S. Vaknin, Plaintiffs attributed false, AI-hallucinated quotations or holdings to at least 11 of those cases. This is the third distinct filing over a monthlong period in which Plaintiffs have used non-existent quotations to attempt to defeat Fenix's requests for relief. This pattern of submitting false, AI-generated law is an "abuse of the judicial system" that harasses Fenix and wastes the Court's time and resources. It must be stopped. The Court should disregard Plaintiffs' latest tainted efforts and grant the Motion.

And another filing:

Although Plaintiffs had two months to craft their 11,515-word brief, they were evidently unable to find legitimate legal authorities supporting their arguments. On at least 20 occasions, Plaintiffs' Opposition cites imaginary caselaw, quotes invented language in real cases, summarizes non-existent court holdings and analysis, or responds to arguments Fenix did not make. (See Declaration of Or-el Vaknin (compiling examples).) For example, Plaintiffs ….

Law.com / The Recorder (Kat Black) passes along this statement from "Robert Carey, a Hagens Berman partner based … who is representing the plaintiffs," who "said that the briefs contained 'sections drafted by co-counsel outside our firm.'"

In those sections, quotation marks were improperly placed on the holdings of real cases, and inaccurate statements and citations appeared, including one citation to a case that did not exist. Our review did not catch those errors, and we take responsibility for that oversight. It should not have happened.

Law.com goes on to say:

The co-counsel, according to the statement, was a "Yale Law School graduate and trusted colleague who has provided excellent work for over a decade"—and was navigating an "intense family crisis" with her father, who had entered hospice earlier this summer after a long-term battle with Parkinson's disease and other medical conditions.

And it quotes more from the Carey statement:

While managing his care from afar, she did not share with us how overwhelming the situation had become. Under that strain, she turned to an AI tool to help polish her drafts, not realizing that in doing so, the tool had introduced or altered citations and text. Because she did not alert us to her situation, and her material arrived late in the process, our usual review protocols could not be fully applied. She will demonstrate to the court that the flawed content was preceded by careful and responsible research, writing and development of arguments.

Law.com also quotes more from a separate statement by Carey in a phone interview, in which Carey also said "the plaintiffs' legal team will request to file corrective briefs that remove inappropriate quotations and statements and explain what happened to the court":

It's a mistake. It shouldn't have happened. It's our responsibility to make sure briefs are right no matter who puts the sections together. But it was a little difficult when it's a person we've had a longstanding relationship with, and she's a high-level lawyer and brief writer, and she is helping us finalize the briefs that we just didn't think we needed to check her work….

And so, lesson learned. We apologize to our opposing counsel … and we're going to apologize to the court and see what we need to do to make it right. But our firm has filed thousands and thousands of high-level briefs, and this is not our practice. If we knew what was going on, we would've stopped it—but again, a lesson learned.

The underlying allegations, by the way, also related to alleged falsehoods:

OnlyFans, a social media platform known almost exclusively for hosting sexually oriented content, has hundreds of millions of users (called "Fans") who pay for the privilege of communicating directly with specific people who post content on the platform (called "Creators") on a personal (indeed, often an intimate and/or romantic) level. But instead of interacting with a specific Creator, Fans end up—unknowingly and without their consent—communicating with professional "chatters" hired to impersonate that Creator in order to convince Fans to spend even more money on the platform.

Chatters are often hired by self-styled "management agencies" operating OnlyFans accounts on behalf of multiple Creators, at the request of and with the consent of the Creators. These agencies hire veritable fleets of Chatters—often from countries like the Philippines and Venezuela, where they can get low-cost, yet well-educated, workers who can convince Fans they are engaged in "authentic" communication with a particular Creator.

In addition to the blatant deception and fraud, the "Chatter Scams" involve massive breaches of confidentiality and privacy violations in which intimate communications and private and/or personal information about Fans—including photos and videos—are distributed and/or accessible to numerous unauthorized parties.

OnlyFans knows about the agencies perpetrating the Chatter Scams; indeed, it has co-hosted events with at least one agency named as a defendant in this Complaint….