Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
2025-03931 · Lackawanna County
Evidentiary treatment: This summarizes the plaintiff's own allegations as stated in the complaint or docket record cited below. It reflects what was filed, not a court finding, and is not a determination that the allegations are true.
Plaintiff alleges his OnlyFans account (operated in the U.S. by Fenix Internet LLC) was permanently banned in February 2023 after an unknown user allegedly accessed it and violated OnlyFans' Terms of Service, and that OnlyFans refused subsequent efforts to reinstate him.
He pleads sex discrimination (citing a federal civil-service nondiscrimination provision), theorizing OnlyFans favors female creators because the bulk of its revenue comes from its 87%-male subscriber base paying to view them, together with Sherman Antitrust Act, “refusal to deal,” and FTC Act claims premised on OnlyFans' alleged 95%+ market share.
He seeks compensatory damages of no less than $30,000 per month he's been unable to use the platform (~$750,000 as of filing). This is at least the third near-identical Fenix/OnlyFans suit — after C042 (federal, dismissed for failure to state a claim, appeal deemed frivolous, Nov. 2024) and C051 (federal, filed June 2025) — and was itself removed to federal court as C052.
This page separates court/ruling records, party filings, research classifications, secondary sources and public statements. Unknown or unresolved fields remain labelled as such.
Outcome reason: In forma pauperis granted 2025-05-27 (Nealon, J.). Fenix Internet LLC (OnlyFans' U.S. operating entity) filed its Notice of Removal on 2025-06-27; Tufano filed an Objection to Removal on 2025-07-02. The case is the same underlying action already tracked federally as C052. This is at least the third near-identical suit against Fenix/OnlyFans over the same February 2023 account ban -- after C042 (federal, dismissed for failure to state a claim without further leave to amend, appeal deemed frivolous) and C051.
Research status: Source-backed (direct LPA portal docket + case detail)
Research notes: Confirmed by direct review of the Verified Complaint and docket entries via the Lackawanna Prothonotary's portal. No further state-side information beyond the removal; see C052 for the federal docket.
Sequence does not by itself prove motive or causation.
Tufano filed C011 in Lackawanna County against Fenix Internet LLC over the same underlying February 2023 account ban, roughly 6.5 months after C042 was dismissed with an appeal-frivolous finding.
Source — lpa-homes.org ↗Fenix Internet LLC removed C011 to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, where it continues as C052 (same originating action as C011).
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Public statements are displayed separately from court findings. Quotations are transcribed from the video’s own YouTube auto-generated captions and timestamped from the caption cues covering the passage quoted. The Strong / Moderate / Context tier is this project’s research classification of how closely a statement bears on the documented filing patterns — it is not a judicial finding. Any second badge names the filing-restriction factor the statement’s own words describe; it records what the speaker said, not that a court found it.
How quotations are marked: An ellipsis (…) inside a quotation marks words left out between two passages of the same video, which can sit some minutes apart. The omitted wording is not reproduced here, and a clip on the statement supercut plays the whole span from the quotation’s first word to its last — so it includes the omitted material. Quotations without an ellipsis are continuous speech.
I spent every day last week writing up lawsuits, suing this oven company because they won't send me replacement parts for the oven. I'm suing the bank because they didn't uh honor my mortgage terms. I'm suing these I literally filed seven lawsuits last week and it looks like we're going to be filing a few more.
A self-reported filing count that the docket data corroborates exactly, with two of the seven identified by their subject matter in the same breath. The case tracker records exactly seven actions filed in the week Monday 2025-05-26 → Sunday 2025-06-01: C007, C008, C009, C010, C011 and C012 (all Lackawanna County, 2025-05-27) and C097 (New York Supreme Court, 2025-05-29). "Suing this oven company because they won't send me replacement parts for the oven" is C012, Tufano v. Rational USA Inc (2025-03932), whose own claims summary reads: "purchased a commercial 'Rational' combi oven … that arrived missing parts; the parts supplier … and Rational USA took more than six months to provide the missing parts, then sent the wrong ones, after which Rational ceased contact." "I'm suing the bank because they didn't uh honor my mortgage terms" is C009, Tufano v. Fidelity Bank (2025-03929), part of the Fidelity Bank mortgage and flood-insurance dispute, which the recorded litigation timeline shows filed 2025-05-27 "over the disputed payoff and flood-insurance charge." The Repeat filing on the same dispute factor is carried by C011 (Fenix Internet, filed about six and a half months after C042's dismissal) and C010 (USDA, about two months after C049's dismissal), which the recorded litigation timeline characterises as new complaints on already-litigated grievances — though he does not say so here. The count matching is a corroboration, not proof he meant those seven. He names two; the other five are inferred from the calendar alone.
Watch at 16:48 — youtube.com ↗Each video has its own research page with its verified publish date, timestamped statements and case links. A researched link between a video and a docket record is not a finding of causation in either direction.
Frank Tufano Litigation Research. "Tufano v. Fenix Internet LLC (2025-03931)". Research last verified September 23, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/cases/2025-03931-tufano-v-fenix-internet-llc/