Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
3:24-cv-01115 · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania
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 that OnlyFans (operated in the U.S. by Fenix Internet, LLC) permanently banned his account in February 2023 after an unauthorized user allegedly accessed it in violation of platform terms, and that OnlyFans refused subsequent efforts to reinstate him.
He pleads sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, theorizing OnlyFans disfavors male creators because most of its revenue comes from its majority-male subscriber base paying to view female creators, together with Sherman Antitrust Act, “refusal to deal,” and FTC Act claims premised on OnlyFans' alleged monopoly position in the content-subscription market.
He seeks judgment on each claim and compensatory damages of no less than $30,000 per month he was unable to use the platform (approximately $510,000 as of July 2024).
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: Amended complaint dismissed for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), without further leave to amend. Update 2026-08-25: The closing order dismissed the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. sec. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) without further leave to amend and expressly certified that "[a]ny appeal from this order is deemed to be frivolous and not taken in good faith" -- confirming, against the order text itself, the frivolous-appeal certification already recorded for this case. The new element established this pass is the appellate docket number, below.
Research status: Source-backed (closing order text; appellate linkage confirmed from the appellate docket header)
Research notes: The order also deemed any appeal frivolous and not taken in good faith. Update 2026-08-25: The appeal from this case is docketed at the Third Circuit as No. 24-3329, "Frank Tufano v. Fenix Internet LLC," docketed Dec. 17, 2024. The link is confirmed from that docket's header ("Appealed From: M.D. Pennsylvania (24-cv-01115)", trial judge Saporito) and its order/judgment date, which matches this case exactly. The appellate docket shows no termination entry, and no certified order appears on the district docket, so the appeal's current state is not established. Note that this dataset contains three separate Fenix Internet cases; this appeal belongs to this one and not to C051 or C052.
Findings recorded only where they are tied to an order, opinion or report and recommendation.
Record labels distinguish final orders/opinions, reports and recommendations, non-final orders, and tentative/indexed ruling records.
Order dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim without further leave to amend and deemed any appeal frivolous and not taken in good faith.
November 13, 2024 ruling source — casemine.com ↗Ruling on Tufano's motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis from the dismissal of this action, the district court 'CERTIFIES that the plaintiff's appeal is not taken in good faith' and denied the motion. A second in forma pauperis motion followed on 2025-03-18, and the Third Circuit ultimately dismissed the appeal on 2025-07-23 for failure to prosecute, the fee never having been paid. Recorded from the district docket entry's own text (entry 19); the order itself was not read.
January 3, 2025 ruling source — courtlistener.com ↗United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, No. 24-3329. The district docket records the appellate order verbatim: 'ORDER of USCA ORDERED that the above-captioned case is hereby dismissed for failure to timely prosecute insofar as appellant failed to pay the requisite fee as directed.' Recorded from the district docket entry's own text (entry 22); the order itself was not read.
July 23, 2025 ruling source — courtlistener.com ↗Appeals taken from this docket record, with what the research does and does not establish about each.
Taking an appeal is a party’s filing, not a ruling — only an appellate court’s own disposition is a finding, and a disposition recorded here is a docket fact rather than reasoning unless the order itself was read. An appeal continues the action it arises from, so appeals are never counted as additional lawsuits: the case and originating-action counts published elsewhere on this site are unaffected by this section. Where a docket number or a current status is not recorded, that is a stated gap in the research, not a finding that none exists. See Methodology.
Captioned 'Frank Tufano v. Fenix Internet LLC'. The linkage is confirmed from the appellate docket's own header ('Appealed From: M.D. Pennsylvania (24-cv-01115)', trial judge Saporito) and an order/judgment date matching this case. Disposition verified 2026-09-10 from the district docket, M.D. Pa. 3:24-cv-01115 entry 22 (2025-07-23), which recites the Third Circuit's order verbatim: 'ORDER of USCA ORDERED that the above-captioned case is hereby dismissed for failure to timely prosecute insofar as appellant failed to pay the requisite fee as directed.' The fee had been at issue from the start: on 2025-01-03 the district court certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith and denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (entry 19, Saporito, J.), and a second IFP motion followed on 2025-03-18. The Third Circuit's own docket is mirrored on CourtListener only through its case-opening entries of 2024-12-19 and shows no disposition.
Record source — courtlistener.com ↗Strength labels are research classifications, not judicial declarations that the litigant is vexatious.
After dismissing the amended complaint for failure to state a claim without further leave to amend, the court expressly deemed any appeal frivolous and not taken in good faith.
Source — casemine.com ↗Sequence does not by itself prove motive or causation.
Tufano filed federal complaint C042 against Fenix Internet LLC (OnlyFans' U.S. operating entity) over a February 2023 account ban.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Amended complaint dismissed for failure to state a claim, without further leave to amend; the order also deemed any appeal frivolous and not taken in good faith.
Source — casemine.com ↗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 ↗Tufano filed a separate federal complaint, C051, against Fenix Internet LLC, six days after filing the state complaint C011.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Frank Tufano Litigation Research. "Tufano v. Fenix Internet, LLC (3:24-cv-01115)". Research last verified September 23, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/cases/3-24-cv-01115-tufano-v-fenix-internet-llc/