OnlyFans Class Action Claims Site Allows ‘chatters’ to Impersonate Content Creators, Deceiving Subscribers - Ep. 57
Download MP3welcome to Litigation Nation. My name is Danessa Watkins, here with my co host, Jack Sanker. And this is the show where we cover the most exciting and interesting legal news from across the country. As a reminder, we have shows coming out every 2 weeks, and you can find us on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, and wherever you get your podcasts. Jack, what do you have teed up for us today?
Jack Sanker:So the adult subscription website, OnlyFans, has been sued for fraud and violation of federal racketeering statutes for the alleged widespread use of online impersonators who would pose as models or performers, chat and talk with subscribers, and allegedly, through those kind of interactions, scam the subscribers out of more money online. This one's kind of super interesting, kind of risque, but I think we can handle it with class on the show.
Danessa Watkins:Well, in a similar vein, I'm also covering something to do with influencers. A little less risque though. It is the new Illinois law that went into effect as of July 1, 2024, and this is forcing influencer parents to compensate their children for appearing in social media content. I'm also gonna discuss the secret family battle for the Murdoch news empire that's being fought out in probate court and just came to light recently. All that and more, here's what you need to know.
Jack Sanker:At the intersection of technology, the influencer economy, and adult entertainment, there kind of stands one name above all above all else, OnlyFans, which is the online subscription platform that hosts mostly adult performers and models. Danessa, why don't you tell listeners all about OnlyFans?
Danessa Watkins:Of course you would put me on the spot like that.
Jack Sanker:I'm kidding. No. I got I haven't. I'm gonna do
Danessa Watkins:it.
Jack Sanker:OnlyFans is a, subscription based content creator platform. It's really kind of in its essence no difference from, you know, say, a lot of other platforms like Patreon or Substack, or any other content subscription platform, which themselves are really not much different than, like, subscribing to a newspaper or a magazine or anything like that. It's just kind of the online way of doing that. So you pay monthly for access to content. You know, if it's The New York Times, you're you're getting a a copy of The New York Times to read, you know, every week or whatever it is.
Jack Sanker:If it's only contents that's being posted by the creators that are on there. OnlyFans is kind of, infamous for being in on an adult content site, pornography. It does, as I understand it, and I think maybe even been intended to do other things, like, you know, blog posts or, like, online coaching, so, like, workouts and things like that. But it's kinda just become exactly this, like, you know, adult content and everything else. One thing that OnlyFans does and, again, a lot of these these other online platforms do, but it's kind of what we're gonna be talking about here today is it offers the ability of subscribers, to reach out and send messages to the models and performers, that are on the website often for a price.
Jack Sanker:And you can imagine that the content of those messages, is often pretty, you know, racy, at least according to the class action complaint that we're gonna be talking about here today. The underlying crux of this class action that was just recently filed, by the firm of Hagans, Berman, Sobel, and Shapiro in the central district of California is that the creators often farmed those interactions, the actual, like, chatting with the subscribers out to, offshore chat farms and then and I think in some cases, even AI. So think about, like, call centers, you know, if you call in for customer service or something like that, kind of a similar setup, except those types of setups are responding to messages from subscribers online. Again, the topics of which are often, like, pretty lewd, you'd imagine. The plaintiffs in the suit who were subscribers, to creators and OnlyFans, are claiming that they were defrauded when paying to chat with who they thought were the models, but it turns out they were actually chatting with these, like, subcontracted chat call center people.
Jack Sanker:And the actual, complaint itself names both OnlyFans the company, as well as a number of the agencies that represent the creators who, according to the complaint, set the creators up with these different chat farms and kind of manage them directly as part of their, talent management, and they would do it and take a fee for it.
Danessa Watkins:Is this all like, do you chat through the through the program? Or are these, like, text messages outside of of, OnlyFans? I don't know if that came up at all.
Jack Sanker:I don't know, to be honest. I think I mean, I so, like, I, like, I know so, like, I use Substack, for example. And you can, like, just send a message to the to the author of, you know, a Substack article. And it's it's within the app. So I I don't I I would assume it's probably, like, via OnlyFans.
Jack Sanker:Right?
Danessa Watkins:Like like sending, yeah, like, private messages, that sort of thing. Yeah.
Jack Sanker:Yeah. Like a private message or whatever. Although, actually, now that you you're better. Although, actually, now that you mentioned it, many of the models offered, what they called the girlfriend experience, which you could subscribe to. And that may have included, like, personal messages, like, on your cell phone.
Jack Sanker:I don't know.
Danessa Watkins:Got it. Okay.
Jack Sanker:Yeah. So
Danessa Watkins:Different tiers of subscription. Okay.
Jack Sanker:Yeah. So I I I we'll start with a, write up in Law 360 where I I I first found this headline and then kinda dove into the actual lawsuit afterwards. I'll quote from the lost 360 piece here. Quote, the online platform is known exclusively for hosting sexually oriented content according to the complaint from 5 OnlyFans users. According to them, users pay to communicate directly with models and others who post content on the platform in conversations that are often intimate and romantic.
Jack Sanker:Fans, however, are unknowingly sharing these moments with people hired to impersonate that creator and convince people to spend money spend more money on the platform, the suit says. In addition to the blatant deception and fraud, the scams result in massive breaches of confidentiality and privacy violations, the suit says, because sensitive information from fans, including videos and photos, can end up in these unauthorized hands. The models in chatters are connected to management agencies operating only fans accounts according to the complaint. The agencies hire veritable fleets of chatters who can convince fans that they are engaged in, quote, unquote, authentic communication with a particular creator, it states. And OnlyFans knows about the agencies and the chatter scams but does nothing because it takes a 20% cut of everything a creator earns on the platform, the complaint claims.
Jack Sanker:Creators can share content with their fans through the platform, including photos and videos, and creators make money through monthly subscriptions fees on top of pay per view and custom content provided at a fan's request. The platform also allows fans to send tips to creators of up to $200 per transaction. In 2021, the platform generated approximately 2,000,000,000 in revenue according to the complaint. The promise of a personal connection with creators is why users flock to OnlyFans according, again, to the complaint. And the platform's marketing highlights this aspect according to the users.
Jack Sanker:The agencies for the creators use the chatty impersonators to keep subscribers engaged and lead them along into thinking that they're having a personal relationship with the creator, the suit claims, adding that the agencies even provide the impersonators with training and scripts to identify the most emotionally invested targets. Agency chatters are trained to exploit emotional connections using manipulative tactics that prey on psychological biases and vulnerabilities. The suit states they never reveal that they are not the actual creators, unquote. So, this will be the 2nd time we referenced the movie Her, on the on the on the show. But I guess, like, kinda think about that.
Jack Sanker:Like, you're you're paying a subscription to have a, you know you know, contact with someone. And, and instead of it being, like, a a friendly Scarlett Johansson, you're you're getting someone who's just essentially trying to coerce you into sending more and more money over over again through, you know, a a fake relationship that's, like, both fake in the sense that they're, an online creator that's, like, built this platform to suck money out of you and also fake in the sense you're not even talking to that person. So, that seems to be, you know, what's happening here. And looking at the complaint in the actual lawsuit, one thing that jumps out is that the marketing from OnlyFans, itself it it it markets itself as offering kind of a unique personal connection between subscribers and the creators. And it expressly lists, like, you know, quote, direct messages with creators as a benefit of being a subscriber.
Jack Sanker:So it sure looks like OnlyFans, you know, OnlyFans, like, corporate or whatever you wanna call it, knows about this arrangement and is at least tacitly fine with it. And the complaint has a lot I mean, it's like a 140 page complaint. It's actually it's, quite well researched. It's, it's very interesting to read. There's a lot of, like,
Danessa Watkins:information. Say that this seems like they they're in the know about, you know, like, I'm kind of curious how they got all this information about, like, the behind the scenes business Right. Portion of this. I mean, my first my first question was how did they find out? Like, how did they even you know, what was the red flag?
Danessa Watkins:Was it because their conversation was different one day to the next? And so they're like, alright. This clearly isn't the same person. Or
Jack Sanker:That's a great question. I don't know if I saw that in the complaint. Although I did I did say that they, so the as to the attorneys who would have drafted the complaint here, I think that they, like, did a lot of, they did a lot of research on this, and I found it very interesting because they cite to in the footnotes of the complaint a number of different, like, like, podcast interviews of, like, creators who are, like, going on a podcast and being like, and I signed with an agency, and they said that I could use this whole thing. You know, they're, like, just copying the whole thing. Yeah.
Jack Sanker:So they, like, they they seem to have, like, a a pretty good sense that this is I'll put it this way. I don't think that it seems like it was an open secret, and I don't think that, either OnlyFans or the agencies or the creators are going to, like, credibly deny that this was happening.
Danessa Watkins:I
Jack Sanker:think that they're they will likely defend the case on, you know, something in the terms of service or whatever that would have, you know, ostensibly allowed them to do this. But I I think that, they do talk about and they complain about, like, the volume of people that are chatting with these folks and, like, I don't know. I've seen, like, headlines on even in, like, mainstream news sources where it's, like, OnlyFans creator making, you know, $300,000 per month, and it's, like, chatting with, like, several 1,000 people per day, which is just not possible unless someone else is doing it for you. So I don't think that there's gonna be any credible argument that this was not happening. It's it's just whether it's, like, legal or not.
Danessa Watkins:What are the causes of action they're bringing?
Jack Sanker:So various variations on fraud, fraud in the inducement, like, just fraud, fraud, RICO, violations of a couple of different California, specific privacy laws, which I don't know much about. But, like, as far as I could tell, the it it I don't think they would be, like, considered, like, the, like, revenge porn statutes, but I think similar in that way, in that obtaining, you know, illicit or or nude photos of someone, like, through deception is Mhmm. Expressly illegal in in in California.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah.
Jack Sanker:And which is not gonna apply it across every state, of course, but, like, the the larger fraud counts and the the, alleged RICO violations would if it's certified as a class. And given the amount of revenue that is that they're claiming is coming in to OnlyFans and any amount of active users that it has, stuff like that, which is, like, quasi public information, sure seems like they're gonna have enough to get certified, which is very interesting. And the the complaint, you know, like I said, it it it says that the use of these chat farms, is widely known and discussed. It does not allege that there that there is it doesn't expressly allege that these creators are using AI, but it does allude to other creators may be using AI. And I think at this point, they have
Danessa Watkins:to be assume. Yeah. I understand that. Because, I
Jack Sanker:mean, the the the complaint talks about, like, these users getting in and spending tens of 1,000 of dollars, by the way. Like, one one individual, I think, spent $20,000 or something like that. But that was in, like, 2020 2020, 2022. So, like, OpenAI, ChatGPT, all that stuff is, like, laid out in 2022 through 23 and 24. So Mhmm.
Jack Sanker:I don't think it would have just been, you know, as available during the time which these causes of actions accrued. However, like, as of today, I mean, I'm sure that that that some, you know, chat gbt rap is being used by someone on someone on on the OnlyFans platform. So, just an interesting kind of, like, how is that technology like, everyone's looking for the first use case for, for, like, chat gbt in, like, a business setting, and it turns out it's, like, porn scams.
Danessa Watkins:So Makes sense. Yeah. Yeah.
Jack Sanker:So, you know, we'll see. The complaint also names the talent agencies as I mentioned, that work with the creators to kinda supply the chat farms to set this all up. According to complaint, quote, agencies even provide chatters with actual scripts similar to those used by telemarketers and call center employees which give chatters a specific workflow to follow in order to maximize the amount of money extracted from any given fan. 1 online commentator described how each chatter is given a carefully designed script to follow in their messages. The script has been designed just as a sales script is to lead the fan into getting into a quote buying mood and to end up buying content, unquote.
Jack Sanker:A lot of the creators themselves are advertising things like I mentioned earlier, like, being your virtual girlfriend is something you can buy. Along with, like, other I mean, it there's obviously, like, the the, like, lewd and, like, expressly, like, adult content, but then there's a lot of this, like, really sad, like, emotional stuff. Like, you can, you know, pay for a friend online, kind of. And I if I had to guess, that probably brings in as much, if not more money than the, like, you know, the pornography stuff. And the complaint also talks about that as well, how it's, like, emotionally manipulative, and, you know, this, like, epidemic of loneliness, which the complaint cites to, some, like, NHS statistics on that or whatever and how this isn't sliding right into that crack there and and exploiting it.
Jack Sanker:A lot of this leads to what, you know, looks like pretty bad oversharing by the users, of course, as you can imagine, details about their lives, families, their jobs, and then ultimately and that specific part, as I mentioned, according to the plaintiffs, opened up the defendants to further liability under the various California privacy laws. So, they're kind of looking for the the relief that they're looking for is typical to a class action like this. That they're looking for is typical to a class action like this. And it, temporary and permanent injunction on OnlyFans from operating this kind of way, punitive damages, travel damages under the relevant federal statutes, attorney's fees and costs, etcetera, etcetera. Seems like there's enough money that this is, like, a significant, like, chunk out of this company, which does a ton of revenue.
Jack Sanker:And, you know, it's it's just one of those, like, like, 5, 8 years ago, like, this was, like, a fictional thing. Like, this was, like, a Black Mirror episode or or the movie Her or whatever, and now it's just, like, around. So I'll be interested to see where the lawsuit goes. I think there's very little chance that it goes too far in the discovery. And, likely, what'll happen is, you know, if I had to guess, OnlyFans and the agencies end up paying, you know, a Fats settlement once the class is certified.
Jack Sanker:That's usually how it goes.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah.
Jack Sanker:So, you know, I don't know. It's kind of the further monetization of, like, the influencer economy as well as, the kind of AI hook that we've been alluding to and watching to see how that shows up in actual businesses. And, you know, sure enough, one of the first, you know, it it's I mean, it's not like anything else, but it's, like, one it's like a new technology, and we're we're immediately gonna run scams on it. Yeah. So we'll keep an eye on the lawsuit, which I think will just be interesting because of what it'll reveal about the economics of that sector, and the way in which that technology is being deployed.
Jack Sanker:But for now, it's just it's kind of a weird and interesting case that jumped out of the headlines at me.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah. And it's, I mean, I think you're right. It's probably not gonna go to discovery. I think this, this class could be potentially huge. So I'm sure the company is gonna try to get a quick settlement in.
Danessa Watkins:But, I immediately, like, put on my defense hat here and and think about I mean, I haven't researched this at all, but you did mention that even the complaint itself references that this is discussed widely, you know, on on podcasts and, you know, these influencers themselves are kinda, like, revealing the what's behind the curtain and what goes on. So as a defense counsel, I would start looking into that stuff and, you know, were you actually defrauded? And maybe if you didn't have the specifics, like, let's look at everything else that's been around for a long time. And you should have assumed that, you know, business was gonna continue in the same way on this particular application. Like, I'm just thinking and I know you don't pay for Instagram, but I'm thinking about, like, celebrities on Instagram.
Danessa Watkins:You know, they've you know, you got the little blue check next to your name. You know, that's supposed to signify that you are who you say you are. But even still, if you're getting a response from,
Jack Sanker:Kim Kardashian.
Danessa Watkins:Right now. Yeah. Sure. Kim Kardashian on Instagram. Like, that's not, yeah, that's not Kim Kardashian.
Danessa Watkins:And anyone that thinks that that's Kim Kardashian, like, come on. Like, you can't put your head in the sand. So I would from if they wanted to fight this, I mean, those are the type of arguments I would think they would be fighting. Yeah. Don't not to be crass, but, like, don't fall in love with a stripper at the same time.
Danessa Watkins:You know? Like
Jack Sanker:Classic advice.
Danessa Watkins:And not in in no way, shape, or form am I in any way trying to say that, you know, people who are on OnlyFans are strippers or anything? I know that they're very different uses for that program. I mean,
Jack Sanker:I think it's fair to say that most of them are, Dinesh. I think it really is
Danessa Watkins:that, though. I mean, that's I I literally know nothing about it other than what I've seen on Instagram where, you know, certain people will say follow me on,
Jack Sanker:on this That's I just like the biggest pipeline is, like, Instagram and TikTok. And it's, like, here's, Right. So, I mean yeah. I I don't know. It's I guess I don't have, like, a super coherent story to tell the audience on this other than, this just the whole influencer economy operates in a lot of weird kinda gray space.
Jack Sanker:It's that, like because there's nothing wrong with, like, selling adult adult content. Like, that's, like, perfectly legal. I mean, obviously, you know, within the confines of, like, all the other laws, you know, regulating it or whatever. But, like, the what they're doing is, like, not inherently legal. It's this idea of, how, you know, how how much of a sell can you really do to someone?
Jack Sanker:I mean, you could spam ads at someone all day. That's totally fine.
Danessa Watkins:Mhmm.
Jack Sanker:Personalized ads that, you know, is buying up app user data and is is narrowing it down by, like, demographic and browsing history and, you know, where you live and, the race and gender and all those things. I mean, I it's you probably know this, but
Danessa Watkins:it's like a running
Jack Sanker:joke how, like, Instagram knows you're pregnant before you do, because you start 100%. Yeah. You start getting that sort of formula and stuff.
Danessa Watkins:Right. And
Jack Sanker:and so this is, like, a okay. Well, like, what if I, like, literally pretend to be your girlfriend and, like, tell you you're handsome and, you know, and all those things? Like, that's it's just a one one of those areas of, this this is getting close to, like, pushing limits on some levels. Maybe not legal acceptability, but maybe, kind of social or,
Danessa Watkins:Yeah. I I hear you. I mean, on on the one hand, you're paying you're already paying money to even subscribe to some of these pages, and then they obviously have the tiered pricing and whatnot. So you go in knowing that something is being sold here and, you know, you're potentially gonna get upsell up upselled upsold on the on, you know, further things. But, but, yeah, at that same time, if the, it it kind of all depends on how it's advertised.
Danessa Watkins:If it's advertised in such a way that you you truly do believe you're gonna spend this money in order to talk to this person specifically, then I I can
Jack Sanker:Yeah. And and and in cross
Danessa Watkins:the line.
Jack Sanker:Crucially for the law sake of the lawsuit at least, like, the both OnlyFans, the creators, and the agencies are taking the position that no. No. No. You are connecting directly with the creator. I they're they quote a number of number of creators in the complaint who, like, say things on social media posts like, oh, I got to you know, I I'm so happy I'm doing this.
Jack Sanker:I've got to connect with so many people. I have, like, met so many people through this process. I I I love
Danessa Watkins:Got it.
Jack Sanker:I love talking with my fans, you know, stuff like that, but it's just, like, not happening. You know? That's just, like, part of the deception. And I can see, like, it's deceiving and, you know, and maybe folks turn a blind eye towards it because they wanna be willfully ignorant for one reason or another because it's, you know, it's mentally, it's it's probably cool to think to yourself that you're talking to a supermodel, and, like, you'll you'll keep that cognitive dissonance up so that you can kinda maintain that fantasy. But that does seem like I don't know.
Jack Sanker:That just seems not great.
Danessa Watkins:Just reminds me of the show Catfish too.
Jack Sanker:Yes. I mean, yes. It's it is that. It's exactly that. Thank you.
Jack Sanker:Yes.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah.
Jack Sanker:Yeah. Well, we'll keep everyone posted on this. I it's just an interesting one. I I think, the fallout from it, maybe it'll be just a quiet settlement that goes away or maybe people start thinking about this stuff a little differently.
Danessa Watkins:Alright. Starting July 1, 2024, the Illinois Child Labor Law is requiring that children under 16 be compensated for their influencing work when they appear in adult content. So, typically, we see children featured in family I guess, they're calling them now vlogs. Adult and others.
Jack Sanker:Different than what we just talked about. Like
Danessa Watkins:Yes. Yes. These are, like, more more wholesome videos. I mean, they could be literally videos about anything. Cooking, cleaning, dancing, like, whatever it is.
Danessa Watkins:But I I think children have become, like, the new puppy, a little bit when it comes to content. And, you know, it it brings people in, people can relate to it. So yeah. A lot of times and I I follow plenty of them on Instagram where children are prominently featured in in videos and content. But before this law came into place, there certainly were no requirements that any portion of income derived from these type of activities would be given to the kids that are featured.
Danessa Watkins:And Illinois is actually from my research, this is the 1st state to do something like this, to actually change its child labor laws in this way. So the specific code provisions that were added are sections 2.6 and 12.6, and they sections 2.6 and 12.6, and they also changed the the definitions or they added new definitions to child labor laws. So vlog, vlog, means content shared on an online platform in exchange for compensation. And vlogger means an individual or family that creates video content performed in Illinois in exchange for compensation. A vlogger though will not include anyone that's under the age of 16 who produces his or her own vlogs.
Danessa Watkins:So if you're, you know, 15 and have a webcam and you're doing your own thing, like, you're not if you make any money, I mean, you're obviously just gonna keep it. But say you feature your younger sibling in your videos, this seems to indicate that you don't need to share that money with your younger sibling. So it'd only be if somebody was over 18 using somebody under 16 is my understanding. So per the statute, if a child's name, image, or likeness appears in at least 30% of the content, then within 30 days of making income from that content, the creator must put money earned into a trust that will become available when the child turns 18. The act doesn't actually set a specific number, for the amount of money that needs to be put in, but it's it breaks it down based on the percentage of the child's participation.
Danessa Watkins:I think it's, you know, the the time that they're actually featured. And there is a threshold requirement, but it's pretty minimum, for for how much money actually needs to be made on the content before they have to do this, but it's it's, like, pretty low. Section 2.6. So that that puts forth the detailed record keeping that adult bloggers must maintain when they're publishing content featuring minors under 16. And if the records are not properly maintained for the statute, the minor can actually commence a civil action to enforce the proper record keeping requirements.
Danessa Watkins:And then section 12.6 deals with the specifics of the trust fund. And notably, if a vlogger knowingly or recklessly violates those trust requirements, the minor cannot only bring a legal action, but if they prevail, the court can award actual damages, punitive damages, costs, and attorney fees. So this is potentially setting up kids suing their parents.
Jack Sanker:I mean, this this just seems is like the updated version of, like, do you remember, like, the, like, nineties kids stars who, like, would go in, like, movies and TV shows and stuff? Then you would always hear stories about, like, how they never got any of that money and, like, their parents kept that money.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah. So it's interesting you went went that road. So this actually going even further back than that, this law was, actually going even further back than that, this law was structured, I guess, modeled after the Coogan Act of 1939. Jack Jackie Coogan was a child actor who was discovered by Charlie Chaplin, and his parents cheated him out of money. So Coogan actually sued his parents, and California created the Coogan Act, which required child performers to receive 15% of their earnings once they turned 18.
Danessa Watkins:Obviously, that's dealing with film. So now we're taking it to the social media spectrum and, which is obviously more prevalent, and I guess probably can lead to more, you know, abuse of of not compensating your children or or young vloggers.
Jack Sanker:So I I I don't have any, like, hard evidence on this, but there is a particular, YouTube, kid. He's, like, 11 or 12, who has been on YouTube for, like, at least 5 years that I know of, who makes many, many, many 1,000,000 of dollars doing toy reviews. And, like
Danessa Watkins:Oh, yeah. Like look at that.
Jack Sanker:Like, 20 to $30,000,000 a year doing toy reviews. And I don't know much about it. I have kids, but my sister has kids and hers her kids are older than mine. And I remember asking her at one point, hey. Have you ever heard of this kid?
Jack Sanker:Do they, like do you guys ever watch this stuff? And she's, like, no. We don't we don't watch that because his, his his parents are ripping him off or something. It's, like, the story that I heard from my sister. So, like, I don't know if that's true or not.
Jack Sanker:That's why I didn't say his name. But but, like, that you could see how, like, appealing that would be to, like, a certain type of parent who's gonna, like, put their kid on, like, TikTok or YouTube or whatever. And I think it's interesting because, like, our age demo, you know, like, thirties, millennials, like, we're all, like, aging into, like, kids, having kids. Mhmm. And so, you know, we're all, like, consuming, like, kids content.
Jack Sanker:You know, like, I I really like you know, if I see, like, a parent and their kid, like, doing, like, a cute dance on Instagram or whatever, like, that you know, I I like that. Right?
Danessa Watkins:Yeah.
Jack Sanker:So, like, there's, like, a all of a sudden, like, a mass appeal for this. So you I bet people are like For sure. Oh, we can get famous by, like, putting my, you know, 6 year old on these videos or whatever, and then the kid gets
Danessa Watkins:nothing. Yeah. I mean, no doubt. This this legislation is trying to protect kids from exploitation, and it's actually kind of interesting. I looked a little bit more into how this came to be.
Danessa Watkins:It was a school project by a teenager who just started investigating the lack of protection for child influencers, and then she shared research and findings with the state senator. And he he pushed the the legislation. So, yeah, it's it's kind of just brings an interesting discussion about who's the moneymaker of a household when you have, you know, maybe the the parents are are doing the postproduction and coming up with the ideas. But, you know, if if your followers and any income you derive I wish
Jack Sanker:I wish my 2 year old would get a job.
Danessa Watkins:Seriously. Yeah. So I I'm sure it's not gonna be the 1st state to do it. I I mean, it is the 1st state to do. I'm sure it's not gonna be the last state to do it.
Danessa Watkins:And I can't imagine too much pushback coming from it. I guess, at least not until kids start suing their parents and then, you
Jack Sanker:know Right.
Danessa Watkins:What happens with that. But On
Jack Sanker:one hand, you could see how it could be framed as a way to, like, drive a wedge between, like, parents and their children or whatever. I don't know. It's I I can only see it ever being an like, I can only ever see it being used in a handful of cases where there's so much money available that both sides are able to, like, lawyer up and do this. So, like, it would have to be, like, a mega rich YouTuber who got absolutely scammed out of tens of 1,000,000 of dollars by his parents. You know?
Jack Sanker:That's the only way, like, you would actually probably see this getting forced. Like, I doubt it's gonna be, you know, some kid with, like, an Etsy shop, like, suing
Danessa Watkins:his
Jack Sanker:parents for, like, 300 bucks. You know?
Danessa Watkins:Yeah. You're probably right. But either way, I mean, good on Illinois for being a front runner and protecting kids. So
Jack Sanker:Yeah. More more influencer economy news. It's always, believe it or not, it's, I think, it's a huge sector of the US economy.
Danessa Watkins:I don't know where I pulled this from, but it said that, essentially, this act comes from a slowed acceptance of influencing as a real career now that we've seen child influencers earn up to $20,000 per post.
Jack Sanker:Alright. We got some of that.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah. Come on, kids. Line up. Alright. Next up, we have Rupert Murdoch who is the 93 year old media mogul who is an executive of Fox Corporation, News Corp, Wall Street Journal, HarperCollins, and the New York Post to name a few.
Danessa Watkins:There is a family feud among Rupert and his 4 eldest children that's been secretly taking place in Nevada's probate court. This just came to light last week after the New York Times obtained a sealed court document that shed light on the conflict. So right now, the trust is arranged for Rupert's 4 eldest children to share equal control, so equal voice and through their equal voting rights of of the family companies in the event of Rupert's death, which again, he's 93. So, he's trying to button things up now. But Rupert wants to change the trust to give his son, Lachlan, majority control over the family empire.
Jack Sanker:Oh my god.
Danessa Watkins:This is
Jack Sanker:this is literally season 4 of succession, but
Danessa Watkins:okay.
Jack Sanker:Go ahead.
Danessa Watkins:Okay. So I have to admit, I have not ever seen succession. Mhmm. But, but yeah. I my understanding is that I don't know if it's true or not, but that's the rumor that it is loosely based off of the Murdock family.
Jack Sanker:So pretty tightly based off the Murdock family, to be honest.
Danessa Watkins:I think even the writers
Jack Sanker:have, like, more or less said so.
Danessa Watkins:Oh, okay. Well, then hit it on the nose. So 3 of his children, James, Elizabeth, and Prudence, they are all taking issue with this latest change. James, in particular, is the one that's been the most vocal about his his feelings that Fox News has poisoned the reputation of the whole business, and he essentially just wants to rid it from, you know, from their docket, I guess, so to speak, which I I will say. I mean, Fox News would sell for, you know, a hefty price if if it really was of concern.
Danessa Watkins:But, either way, that's not within Rupert's vision, and I guess his son, Lachlan, is is on his side as far as keeping everything together. The so Rupert agrees more generally with Lachlan's conservative ideologies than his other children's and his other children's opinions and beliefs. But I thought it was kind of interesting when you look at the the list that's, you know, part of this news empire, you really have, like, a cohabitation of journalistic extremes. I mean, Wall Street Journal on one end and then Fox News on the other, which interestingly, I guess, they I think they, yeah, they operate out of the same tower in New York. So, I mean, on one hand, Rupert just seems to be like any other businessman diversifying his portfolio.
Danessa Watkins:And Lachlan shares that vision, but I guess James is more concerned about how, like, it seems like Fox News in particular, how that reflects on his family. Now the only way that they can change this irrevocable trust that's set up is for Rupert to prove to the court that the amendments he wants to make to the trust would be in good faith and for the sole purpose of benefiting its members. So essentially, that moving away from these more conservative focus news media agencies that it would, cause, you know, the success to decline, and it wouldn't benefit the trust. Perhaps worth noting here, as of 2023, Rupert Murdoch had an estimated personal net worth of 8,700,000,000 according to Bloomberg, and Forbes puts his family's total net worth at 18,000,000,000. There's a lot of money at stake here.
Danessa Watkins:But to be clear, he's not so he's not changing how, like, the finances or the economic stakes in these companies are divided. I guess he has 6 children in total, and it's set up so that all will get equal disbursements. He's more focused on the control. Right now, his 4 eldest are supposed to be sharing in the control, and he's trying to change that to just put one at at the head.
Jack Sanker:So it seems like James is Kendall. Lachlan is Roman. And I don't know who's Connor and Shiv yet, but, you know, maybe by the end of this.
Danessa Watkins:May yeah. Alright. You're gonna have to rely on our listeners to to weigh in on that. It's, like, my
Jack Sanker:second favorite show of all time. So
Danessa Watkins:Alright. I gotta make room for it. I'm I'm, like, just watching now, Better Call Saul. Like, I'm so behind. And I just finished Your Honor, so I'll get to this one eventually.
Danessa Watkins:But, yeah. So I mean, this is all just I I guess it's been brewing for a while. We just didn't know about it. It's finally coming out. So the I get it.
Jack Sanker:The changing of the trust, the the demonstration, I guess, by whatever standard of proof is, like, is in the documents. I don't I don't actually don't know much about this. But, so it has to be shown to be be done in the best interest of all the beneficiaries of the trust. So it's, like, actually a question of what the motives are behind altering the relationship with Fox or not.
Danessa Watkins:That seems to be it. Yeah. And, I mean, like I said, you know, the news organizations that he across the board as far as ideologies and, you know, where they lean politically and whatnot. So he may have a good point that he's just trying to to, you know, hold on to this diversified, you know, news mogul. And he has one son who wants to, I guess, kick out the the more conservative ones, and one that wants to just, you know, keep everything as is.
Jack Sanker:There's a lot of gossip around the settlement for the Dominion Voting Machines lawsuit, which we did cover on an episode, I believe, which is some huge amount of money. I don't recall what it was. I remember it being a lot. And then there was a lot of speculation that part of the deal was also that they had to fire Tucker Carlson.
Danessa Watkins:Right.
Jack Sanker:And that was, like, speculative, like and I don't, to my knowledge, know it as it confirmed that or or or fully denied it. And, and there was, like, just a lot of, like, messy, like, gossip pieces about, you know, the the Murdochs being furious with the Fox folks for, like, getting them into this trouble in the first place and and all of that. So there's probably some level of animosity between, between Rupert and, like, Fox, like, broadly for, you know, costing him probably a couple 100,000,000 at some point
Danessa Watkins:Mhmm.
Jack Sanker:During that during that lawsuit. So it it may it may be, you know, financially motivated as you mentioned, but it it could also just be, like, you know what? I hate these folks. I wanna get out.
Danessa Watkins:Well, that could be a good argument for James in in defending why they need all 4 kids to remain, you know, have equal voting rights because, yeah, there has been a lot of uproar recently caused by Fox News, and it has cost them a lot of money. So maybe, you know, it makes sense to have 4 people weigh in on that. Although, I, in no way, shape, or form, envy that. I mean, we've we've seen this forever though. This is what happens with family businesses.
Danessa Watkins:You hand them down and kids have differing views on on how to continue things. So it's, you know, the classic case of billionaire generational wealth, I guess.
Jack Sanker:Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No.
Jack Sanker:I mean, it'll, it it's, I I don't wanna keep talking about Succession, but it's that that show really seemed to hit the nail on the head for how that dynamic works, like, to the point where, again, this was, like, this is just this was, like, me this was, like, the type of gossip rag that I read was, like, the, folks in the family were, like, stop talking to the writers of the show. God. Like, stop talent. Like, because there would, like, be innuendos and, like, actual specific instances of, like, family interactions, like, written into the show so perfectly, they're like, oh my god. Which of you is talking to HBO?
Jack Sanker:Like, please stop.
Danessa Watkins:Oh, like, in real in real life, the Murdoch
Jack Sanker:family was Like like, actually, there'd be, like, this like, there's there's, like, you know, like, the conversation that happened that's, like, actually happened among the Murdochs that was portrayed on the show. And they're, like, this is alright. Like, you have to stop leaking this stuff to the stupid writers of Succession, please. So, yeah. I mean, it's an it's a I it'll be interesting to see what the, how it gets resolved.
Jack Sanker:I mean, as I understand it, typically, it'll be resolved by some type of, like, negotiation among the various stakeholders. So, like, the 4 kids will have to figure out how they wanna handle it along with Rupert, you know, so long as he's still in the picture that is. But, you know, otherwise, it's like this is the type of thing that's, like, years years of litigation, like, a decade of litigation, if if it if push comes to shove.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah. I mean, I don't and and I know you don't either. We don't work in probate court, so I don't know how that stuff, you know, generally goes. But, but it seems like at some point, yeah, a judge is gonna have to make a decision on whether they can change the terms of this irrevocable trust, which we do know, you know, from our limited preparation for the bar exam. Irrevocable doesn't mean you're revocable.
Danessa Watkins:Right. But but, yeah, there's they're gonna have to meet some sort of a threshold before they can change how things have been laid out. So, yeah, I guess we'll see. But I I think it'll be more interesting to see the media that happens after this, you know, now that cat's out of the bag and I don't know. Maybe it'll affect stocks in a way that makes it, you know, to their benefit to to unload Fox News.
Danessa Watkins:Who knows?
Jack Sanker:Possible. Yeah. I mean, I I think, you know, some people will view it as Rupert is the secret sauce that, you know, has made Fox News and various other media conglomerates what they are. And, you know, removing him from the equation, it makes them just like anything else. And, like, TV as a industry itself, like, TV news as an industry itself is a bit antiquated.
Jack Sanker:So, you know, can they pivot to something, you know, more online or whatever it is? So yeah. I I don't know. It'd be interesting. They they they could, you know, yeah.
Jack Sanker:They could buy Valtter and have to shut it down after 1 season, because it wasn't profitable when Lea went off like they did in concession. So
Danessa Watkins:I would say that all just went over my head.
Jack Sanker:So Yeah. I know. Alright.
Danessa Watkins:Enough of that.
Jack Sanker:Alrighty. Well, that's the show. Thanks for listening. As always, you can find us on Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Spotify, wherever you get your podcasts every other Tuesday. And followed up, we'll talk to you in 2 weeks.
