Complaint
The operators of OnlyFans complained about a video report on 麻豆社 iPlayer which looked at illegal content originating on its website. 聽The company complained the piece was inaccurate, the 麻豆社 had failed to give the company a sufficient right to reply, and in doing so had prevented the proper investigation of alleged offences, potentially putting children at risk.聽 The ECU considered whether the video met the standards of due accuracy and impartiality, alongside the requirement to show fairness to contributors and to safeguard the welfare of children and young people.聽 听听
Outcome
OnlyFans said it was inaccurate to claim that it 鈥渨ill largely be left to regulate itself鈥, as video sharing platforms are subject to regulation by Ofcom. 聽It also expressed concern that Newsnight, which made the video, provided insufficient information prior to the broadcast of 聽the evidence it had of Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM). 聽OnlyFans further alleged that, in failing to provide this information, Newsnight prevented the proper investigation of serious allegations. 聽Finally it stated the 麻豆社 failed to report that the 鈥渢丑颈谤诲-辫补谤迟测鈥 CSAM images could not be verified as originating from or having ever been posted to OnlyFans because Newsnight did not have access to the relevant handle names of accounts.
Taking each point in turn, the report stated: 鈥淭he government鈥檚 long delayed Online Safety Bill proposes heavy fines for websites failing to protect children. But before any legislation passes OnlyFans will be left largely to regulate itself鈥. 聽Ofcom鈥檚 regulatory responsibilities in relation to harmful material and children oblige Video-Sharing Platforms to institute 鈥渁ppropriate age assurance and/or parental control measures to protect under-18s鈥. But, unlike broadcast material, Ofcom is not empowered to resolve complaints about individual items of content; currently the responsibility rests with the platform providers. In the ECU鈥檚 view it was therefore not materially misleading to imply that the duty on OnlyFans to regulate content on its platform rests largely in its own hands.
The ECU then examined the correspondence between the programme reporter and the company, in particular as it related to evidence about the existence of CSAM originating from OnlyFans. In the ECU鈥檚 view the programme provided sufficient information to allow the company to address the broader questions it raised about the efficacy of the moderation and software used by OnlyFans. 聽But the 麻豆社 was not in a position to reveal its source nor to interfere in an investigation by the US authorities by sharing details of account information which might allow OnlyFans to carry out its own inquiries. The ECU noted the video included the statement that 鈥淥nlyFans says it鈥檚 impossible to verify claims without evidence鈥.听听
Finally the ECU examined the claim that the images referred to in the video were unverified and that this should have been made clear to viewers. 聽Newsnight told the ECU the source was a senior figure in a US Law Enforcement agency with a brief to investigate paedophile rings who had agreed to assist Newsnight on condition of personal anonymity. 聽The researches by this agent produced ten examples, believed to have been created within six months of the search of CSAM originating on OnlyFans, some of which clearly carried the OF watermark. 聽It was therefore evident that the images were CSAM and originated on the OnlyFans platform. 聽On this basis the ECU was persuaded that the images were genuine and their provenance identifiable, and that it was appropriate to mention them to OnlyFans in the context of a Newsnight investigation of the company鈥檚 safeguarding procedures and processes.
Not Upheld