Posts

Law.com Article on C2 Education Lawsuit

Law.com Article on C2 Education Trap & Trace Lawsuit

Law.com Article on C2 Education Lawsuit

The Los Angeles consumer protection lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP recently filed a class action against C2 Education in U.S. District Court that accuses the tutoring company of collaborating with TikTok to collect consumer data. The case is getting significant press coverage: a Law.com article on the C2 Education trap & trace lawsuit explores the implications of the federal court’s pre-trial ruling, which denied a motion to dismiss the complaint and essentially said that software embedded on a website can violate the California Trap and Trace Law.

Read the Law.com article, “Federal Ruling ‘Sets Precedent’ for ‘Trap and Trace’ Software Class Actions in Calif.” And for more information about the class action lawsuit against C2 Education, keep reading this blog.

Federal Court: C2 Education May Have Used Trap & Trace Devices to Collect Consumer Information

A Law.com article on the C2 Education trap and trace lawsuit discusses the recent class action complaint filed against the tutoring company for allegedly using trap & trace devices to collect consumer data on its website without permission. The online article also highlights the important precedent that may have been set for trap and trace lawsuits in California:

A federal court delivered a landmark decision impacting “trap and trace” software cases in California, denying defendant C2 Educational Systems Inc. a motion to dismiss a class action alleging it violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) through its partnership with TikTok.

“These allegations demonstrate that Defendant, through the use of the TikTok Software, collected Plaintiff’s information, thereby constituting an invasion of privacy. And invasions of privacy are actionable injuries,” the ruling stated.

“I think it’s a big ruling because you have, in this instance…a federal court saying this is a claim that the federal courts recognize, which generally means that state courts will also recognize trap and trace claims,” said plaintiff’s attorney Robert Tauler.

C2 Education Accused of Collaborating with TikTok to Collect Information from Website Visitors

Los Angeles law firm Tauler Smith LLP filed a class action lawsuit against C2 Education because the online tutoring and test prep company is allegedly violating the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) through its partnership with TikTok. The Defendant subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the class action from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. After evaluating arguments from both sides, the court denied C2 Education’s motion to dismiss.

Assuming the case ultimately reaches trial, the Defendant will need to answer the allegations that they breached California’s Trap and Trace Law, codified as Cal. Penal Code § 638.51 of the CIPA. The Trap and Trace Law prohibits the use of pen registers and trap & trace devices that record dialing or routing information from website visitors. The lawsuit against C2 Education specifically alleges that the tutoring company installed TikTok software on its website to siphon user data and match it with TikTok’s much larger user database. This process, known as “fingerprinting,” gives companies the ability to identify personal information about otherwise anonymous website users.

Landmark Decision: U.S. District Court Sets Precedent for California Trap & Trace Claims

In its motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit, C2 Education argued that the Trap & Trace provision of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) should only apply to physical devices attached to telephone lines, not to website software. The United States District Court for the Central District of California disagreed. The court highlighted § 638.50 of the CIPA, which broadly refers to “devices that record or capture information.” The court also cited Greenley v. Kochava, Inc., an earlier case finding that software “fingerprinting” falls squarely under the pen register definition outlined by the CIPA.

Legal experts have noted that the federal court’s pre-trial ruling in the C2 Education trap & trace case may have broadened the scope of the California Trap & Trace Law and, by extension, strengthened protections for consumers against digital privacy violations and fraud. In fact, the Law.com article on the case called it “a landmark decision.” Los Angeles consumer protection lawyer Robert Tauler, who is representing the plaintiff in the C2 Education class action, observed that this is “the first case effectively saying that software on a website can violate the Trap and Trace Law.”

Did You Visit the C2 Education Website? Contact the California Consumer Protection Attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP

Los Angeles law firm Tauler Smith LLP represents plaintiffs in cases involving invasion of privacy violations. Our California consumer protection lawyers have filed dozens of trap & trace claims on behalf of consumers, including a class action complaint against C2 Education. If you are a California resident who visited the C2 Education website, you may be eligible to join the class action lawsuit.

Call 310-590-3927 or email us today.

Smashbox Trap and Trace Class Action

Trap and Trace Class Action Against Smashbox Cosmetics

Smashbox Trap and Trace Class Action

Tauler Smith LLP recently filed a trap and trace class action against Smashbox Cosmetics, and now the legal action is getting significant press coverage. A recent Law.com article on the Smashbox lawsuit details how the makeup company has been accused of using TikTok’s “trap and trace” software to help the social media platform unlawfully collect and store the confidential information of website visitors. According to the Los Angeles consumer protection lawyers who filed the lawsuit, Smashbox failed to obtain consent from consumers before acquiring their data via a process known as “fingerprinting.” Now, Smashbox has been sued in a California superior court.

Are you a California resident who visited the Smashbox website? To learn whether you might qualify to join the class action suit as a plaintiff, contact us today.

Smashbox Beauty Cosmetics Accused of Using Unlawful Fingerprinting Software

Smashbox Beauty Cosmetics is a cosmetics company that sells primers, foundations, lipsticks, and other types of makeup to consumers both online and in retail stores. The class action lawsuit, which was recently filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleges that Smashbox runs “advanced matching” on its website to scan the site “for recognizable form fields containing phone numbers, email addresses, and other identifying information about customers.”

More specifically, the makeup company is accused of helping TikTok use fingerprinting software to match data from otherwise-anonymous website visitors to existing data that has already been stored by the social media platform. The TikTok app then gathers device and browser information, geographic information, referral tracking, and URL tracking. According to the lawsuit, this is done without users’ consent.

Selling Consumer Data to TikTok?

Smashbox allegedly benefits from the fingerprinting data because TikTok is then able to provide targeted advertisements on the website. Moreover, it is believed by the plaintiffs that Smashbox may be selling this consumer information to other third parties for similar purposes. Depending on the type of information provided on website forms, this could include things like age, gender, race, and even more intimate details about users.

Lead plaintiffs’ attorney Robert Tauler criticized Smashbox for allegedly collaborating with TikTok to collect and share sensitive information about consumers who visit the company’s website. According to Tauler, there are no safeguards in place to protect this information: “TikTok keeps this data for reasons that our leaders believe pose a threat to ordinary citizens.” The dangers of giving Chinese-owned TikTok access to confidential information about Americans have been highlighted in recent months by the National Security Agency (NSA), which has called the social media company “a platform for surveillance”.

CIPA Consumer Privacy Complaint Filed Against Smashbox

A class action complaint has been filed against Smashbox for alleged violations of the California Trap and Trace Law. That law is contained in California Penal Code § 638.51, which is part of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA).

Los Angeles consumer fraud attorney Robert Tauler, who brought the digital privacy class action on behalf of the plaintiffs, believes that this legal action will send an important message to companies like Smashbox allegedly helping third parties like TikTok collect consumer data without permission. Tauler said that “Smashbox should consider the negative impact their secret and immoral data collection practices are having on society instead of just trying to acquire young customers at any cost.”

Join the Trap & Trace Class Action Lawsuit Against Smashbox

The California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) gives consumer privacy victims the right to sue for financial compensation. In fact, other CIPA complaints alleging trap & trace violations allow for multiple forms of damages to be awarded to successful plaintiffs.

The lawsuit against Smashbox Beauty Cosmetics requests different types of financial compensation for qualifying plaintiffs:

  • Statutory damages pursuant to the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA).
  • Punitive damages to ensure that Smashbox refrains from using trap and trace software in the future.
  • Attorney’s fees and other costs.

Additionally, the consumer privacy class action lawsuit against Smashbox seeks a court order enjoining the company from acquiring and sharing consumer data, as well as an order requiring the company to disgorge all data acquired through the TikTok software.

Did You Visit the Smashbox Website? Contact a California Consumer Protection Attorney Today

If you visited the Smashbox Beauty Cosmetics website and/or filled out any forms on the site, your confidential information may have been unlawfully collected. The Los Angeles consumer protection lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP are currently representing plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Smashbox. Call 310-590-3927 or send an email for more information.

Law.com Article on Smashbox Lawsuit

Law.com Article on Smashbox Class Action Lawsuit

Law.com Article on Smashbox Lawsuit

California’s strong digital privacy laws, like the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), have become a popular basis for civil suits filed in state courtrooms. A recent Law.com article on the Smashbox class action lawsuit details how the cosmetics company allegedly used trap and trace devices to help social media company TikTok collect and store confidential information from website visitors. According to attorneys for the plaintiff, the data was acquired automatically as soon as individuals landed on the website: they never even had an opportunity to provide consent.

You can read the Law.com article on the Smashbox lawsuit here.

Smashbox Beauty Cosmetics Accused of Using Trap and Trace Devices on Website

The Law.com article on the recent trap & trace class action provides important details about the allegations against Smashbox:

“I personally think it is a shame that Smashbox would share intimate details of a young person’s life, including their skin color, with TikTok. TikTok keeps this data for reasons that our leaders believe pose a threat to ordinary citizens,” said the plaintiff’s attorney, Robert Tauler of Tauler Smith. “Smashbox should consider the negative impact their secret and immoral data collection practices are having on society instead of just trying to acquire young customers at any cost.”

Smashbox Beauty Cosmetics is accused of using TikTok’s “trap and trace” software to collect and store website visitors’ private identifying information, allegedly using “fingerprinting” software to collect and store user data without their consent.

“The TikTok Software installed and activated by Defendant captures data and sends it to TikTok’s servers so that TikTok can reconstruct the user’s identity. As part of this arrangement, Defendant has the ability to use some of the data to run an advertising campaign on TikTok to market its business on social media. The objective for TikTok is to gather as much information about Americans as they can, by any means necessary,” the legal complaint alleges. “In this regard, TikTok has recently been identified as ‘a platform for surveillance’ by the director of the National Security Agency.”

Lawsuit: Smashbox Tracking Customer Data Automatically Without Consent

Companies like Smashbox are allegedly coding the software used on their websites to track a user’s identity and personal information, including things like geolocation data, search terms, and payment methods. Customer activity on the websites is being tracked automatically: as soon as a person visits the site, their actions are monitored regardless of whether they actually consented to the monitoring. Moreover, the confidential customer information acquired by Smashbox and other companies on their websites may later be sold to third parties for the purpose of targeted advertisements.

Call the California Consumer Protection Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

Tauler Smith LLP routinely represents plaintiffs in cases involving consumer fraud and invasion of privacy, including allegations against companies that have violated the California Trap and Trace Law. To find out if you are eligible to join the class action against Smashbox Beauty Cosmetics, call or email us today.

Federal Trial in St. Louis Missouri

Tauler Smith Wins Federal Bench Trial for Insurance Consumer

Federal Trial in St. Louis Missouri

The insurance claim lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP recently won a major trial on behalf of a food & beverage manufacturer in a federal court in St. Louis, Missouri. The litigation began in a California courtroom with a business dispute over the manufacture of protein bars. Later, several of the parties in that case were also involved in insurance litigation heard by a U.S. District Court. Now, the judge has issued a ruling, with Tauler Smith winning a federal bench trial for their insurance consumer client.

The federal court’s decision can be read here. To learn more about Tauler Smith’s victory in the insurance claim lawsuit, keep reading this blog.

California Nutritional Supplement Lawyers Represent Food Manufacturer in Defective Protein Bar Lawsuit

One of the defendants in the nutritional supplement lawsuit was Eagle Mist Corporation, which does business as Osagai International and which is run by Kevin Laughlin. Eagle Mist is a company that invents and formulates functional foods, such as protein shakes and nutrition bars. They also provide other manufacturers with the technological ingredients they need for foods, beverages, and personal care products.

Nutritional Supplement Agreement

Eagle Mist entered into an agreement to supply ingredients to Sapphire Bakery, which would use the ingredients to reformulate and manufacture 13 types of nutritional protein bars. Sapphire then supplied the nutrition bars to Defense Nutrition, which finally supplied the bars to Julian Bakery.

Nutritional Supplement Dispute

Julian Bakery, the company that ultimately received delivery of the protein bars, alleged that the bars were defective due to the other companies modifying the formula of the bars, in addition to using certain processing agents during manufacturing. Julian Bakery sued Eagle Mist and Sapphire for breach of contract, damages related to defective goods, negligence, breach of warranty, unfair business practices, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and promissory estoppel.

The lawsuit was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, and the complex multi-party litigation included cross-complaints between seven (7) parties that all had a connection to the business dispute. Los Angeles nutritional supplement attorney Robert Tauler represented Eagle Mist in the California litigation, and successfully defeated three successive motions for summary adjudication in the case.

Insurance Coverage Dispute in California Food Supplement Case

Before starting production on the nutrition bars that were to eventually be delivered to Julian Bakery, Eagle Mist needed to get insurance coverage. At the time, Sapphire Bakery had a commercial general liability policy of insurance issued by Ohio Security Insurance Company. That policy called for Ohio Security to cover any legal expenses that Sapphire might one day become obligated to pay as damages in a lawsuit if sued. Since Sapphire’s insurance policy with Ohio Security allowed for the “named insured” to extend coverage to another company as an “additional insured,” Sapphire asked Ohio Security’s insurance broker to include Eagle Mist in its policy. The insurance broker then provided a certificate of liability insurance to Eagle Mist.

The insurance coverage became extremely important later when there was a business dispute over the manufacture of the nutrition bars. Sapphire Bakery’s insurance policy with Ohio Security meant that the insurance company would pay for Sapphire’s legal defense in the nutritional supplement litigation. The insurance company also agreed to pay for Eagle Mist’s legal defense in the civil suit because Eagle Mist was on the policy as an additional insured.

Texas Consumer Protection Attorney Camrie Ventry Wins Insurance Claim Litigation in U.S. District Court

The plaintiffs in the insurance claim litigation were Ohio Security Insurance Company and Ohio Casualty Insurance Company. The parent company of Ohio Security and Casualty is Liberty Mutual Insurance. Ohio Security and Liberty Mutual paid for Eagle Mist’s legal defense in the California nutritional supplement case. Later, the insurance companies argued at trial that Eagle Mist should be ordered to pay back their legal defense costs because they were never supposed to be covered under the insurance policy.

Dallas consumer protection attorney Camrie Ventry of Tauler Smith LLP represented Eagle Mist in the insurance coverage lawsuit. The case was heard by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, with the court holding a one-day bench trial and issuing a memorandum opinion on December 16, 2022. The court was tasked with determining whether Ohio Security Insurance Company did, in fact, have a legal obligation to defend Eagle Mist under the terms of its insurance policy, as well as whether Ohio Security was entitled to reimbursement of the legal defense costs that they provided to Eagle Mist.

Federal Court Rules That Insurance Company Unreasonably Delayed Its Coverage Decision

Ohio Security’s argument at trial was that because Eagle Mist was never covered under the insurance policy, the insurance provider was entitled to recover all expenses it paid for Eagle Mist’s legal defense. The U.S. District Court rejected this argument and found that, under the circumstances, it was justified for Eagle Mist to retain the benefits of the legal expenses paid by the insurance company. Accordingly, the court entered judgment in favor of the Tauler Smith LLP client.

The court cited four main reasons for its ruling in favor of Eagle Mist and against the insurance company:

  1. Ohio Security voluntarily assumed the defense of Eagle Mist in the nutritional supplement lawsuit.
  2. Ohio Security had ongoing knowledge that Eagle Mist was not actually covered under the insurance policy.
  3. Ohio Security continuously paid the defense costs of Eagle Mist in the nutritional supplement lawsuit.
  4. Ohio Security unreasonably delayed for three (3) years before finally notifying Eagle Mist that they were not covered under the policy.

#1 – Insurance Company Agreed to Extend Policy Benefits

One of the benefits of Ohio Security’s insurance policy with Sapphire Bakery (and with Eagle Mist) was that Ohio Security agreed to pay all legal defense costs if there was a lawsuit brought by a third party.

As soon as the defective protein bars lawsuit was filed, Kevin Laughlin and Eagle Mist contacted Ohio Security Insurance Company to confirm that Eagle Mist was covered under the insurance policy. The U.S. District Court said that Eagle Mist had a good faith basis to believe that they were covered under the insurance policy. Kevin Laughlin communicated both verbally and in writing with Ohio Security to confirm that Eagle Mist was an additional insured under the policy, and he did the same with Sapphire Bakery. Moreover, the court found, Laughlin reasonably believed that the Certificate of Insurance issued by the insurance broker explicitly conferred coverage.

#2 – Insurance Company Knew the Policy Was Invalid

Shortly after the supplement civil suit was filed, the insurance company conducted its own investigation to verify whether Eagle Mist qualified as an additional insured under the insurance policy. During this investigation, Eagle Mist provided Ohio Security with email communications, purchase orders, and contracts.

According to the U.S. District Court, Ohio Security knew for several years that Eagle Mist was not actually covered under the insurance policy. But rather than acting quickly to provide notice, the insurance company delayed for three (3) years before finally informing Eagle Mist at a time when it would be most inconvenient for the food & beverage ingredient supplier.

#3 – Insurance Company Continued to Pay Legal Bills

After the investigation, Ohio Security still agreed to cover Eagle Mist’s legal fees for the nutritional supplement lawsuit. For the next three (3) years, the insurance company paid all of Eagle Mist’s legal bills in the case. During this time, Ohio Security made no statements to indicate that Eagle Mist was not covered under the insurance policy, nor did they provide notice to Eagle Mist that the food and beverage company was not covered under the insurance policy. It was only when the lawsuit was set to start trial that Ohio Security suddenly revealed that Eagle Mist never should have been covered under the policy. Ohio Security withdrew their defense, stopped paying Eagle Mist’s legal bills, and demanded that Eagle Mist repay nearly $1 million in defense costs already paid.

#4 – Insurance Company Delayed Its Coverage Decision

Although Ohio Security assumed the defense of Eagle Mist in the case and agreed to cover all legal costs, the insurance company argued that they had explicitly reserved the right to opt out of the arrangement. The court found this argument unpersuasive because the insurance company “essentially buried their head in the sand,” only to later “ask the Court to claw back funds they voluntarily paid over a span of years without producing any evidence that Defendants acted unjustly or that a three-year delay in asserting their coverage position was justified or reasonable.”

The insurance company knew at the start of the California nutritional supplement litigation that Eagle Mist was not supposed to be covered under the policy, but nevertheless continued to pay all legal costs while telling Eagle Mist that there were no issues. Then, after delaying for several years, the insurance company suddenly informed Eagle Mist that they were not covered under the policy. This sudden change in coverage came just one month before trial in the supplement lawsuit, when Eagle Mist would be most vulnerable.

The insurance company tried to justify its decision to withdraw coverage by pointing to a single, vague sentence about “reservation of rights” buried in a 25-page boilerplate letter. The court rejected this argument by noting that “a single mention in a twenty-five-plus-page boilerplate reservation of rights letter, without any further action by Plaintiffs for three years, was insufficient to put Defendants on notice they might not be covered under the Policy.”

Tauler Smith Insurance Litigation Team Represents Businesses & Consumers in California, Texas, and Throughout the U.S.

The Tauler Smith consumer protection & insurance litigation team is proud of its strong track record in insurance claim cases in state courts across California and Texas, as well as in federal courtrooms. Insurance companies must be held accountable when they attempt to take advantage of customers, which is why Camrie Ventry and our Texas litigators always fight so hard for clients in these cases.

After successfully defending Eagle Mist against Ohio Security and Liberty Mutual, Ms. Ventry called it “a great victory” for businesses and individuals who are unfairly forced to pursue the insurance benefits to which they are entitled. Ms. Ventry added, “This ruling shows that insurance companies cannot overreach by demanding to recover an exorbitant amount of money from the very people they are charged with protecting. The court got it right.”

Contact the California and Texas Insurance Claim Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

The attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP represent businesses and individuals in a range of practice areas, including dietary supplement lawsuits, consumer protection litigation, and insurance litigation. Call us today or send an email to schedule a free initial consultation about your case.

TruConnect Summary Judgment

Firm Wins Summary Judgment in Qui Tam Employment Claim

TruConnect Summary Judgment

The California employment defense attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP recently served as co-counsel with Greenberg Traurig to represent TruConnect in a retaliation and wrongful termination case. The firm secured a decisive victory in the case by persuading a U.S. District Court to grant a motion for summary judgment. This means that the workplace retaliation & wrongful termination claims were thrown out at the summary judgment stage without the need for oral argument.

The court’s decision can be read in its entirety here. To learn more about Tauler Smith’s victory in the qui tam employment claim, keep reading this blog.

Los Angeles Employment Attorney Robert Tauler Serves as Co-Counsel for TruConnect

TruConnect Communications, Inc. is a wireless and telecommunications company that provides cell phone service and mobile data plans in the United States, including a partnership with the federal government on the Lifeline Program that subsidizes low-income families with free wireless service. Los Angeles employment attorney Robert Tauler of Tauler Smith LLP worked with the lawyers at Greenberg Traurig to represent TruConnect at several different stages of a qui tam employment retaliation action.

The legal action began when two former employees of Sage Telecom, Inc. filed a qui tam whistleblower claim with the federal government after their positions at the company were eliminated due to significant market contractions. Attorney Robert Tauler was initially hired to defend two of TruConnect’s individual CEOs against the ex-employees’ allegations of qui tam whistleblower retaliation, and he successfully got that part of the case dismissed within a few months. Mr. Tauler was subsequently brought on as co-counsel in the larger employment action involving TruConnect, and now that case has also concluded with Mr. Tauler helping to win a court ruling on behalf of the telecom company.

District Court Grants Motion for Summary Judgment in California False Claims Act Case

The employment retaliation case was heard in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Despite having already lost their qui tam whistleblower claim involving TruConnect, the former employees still argued that they were entitled to damages for retaliation and wrongful termination. These claims were filed under three statutes:

  1. False Claims Act (alleging retaliation)
  2. California False Claims Act (alleging retaliation)
  3. California Labor Code (alleging wrongful termination)

On June 21, 2022, U.S. District Court Judge Philip S. Gutierrez granted a motion for summary judgment that effectively ended the case by dismissing all of the plaintiffs’ claims of retaliation and wrongful termination. The court stated that TruConnect was entitled to judgment “as a matter of law,” which meant that there was no need to proceed to trial.

Los Angeles Litigator Robert Tauler Wins Cases for Clients in California State and Federal Courts

The TruConnect qui tam retaliation case represents another huge victory for Tauler Smith LLP. Attorney Robert Tauler and the other skilled members of the firm’s litigation team have earned the respect of their peers in the legal community, including judges, opposing attorneys, and legal experts. Whether it’s an employment matter, an intellectual property claim, or a business dispute, our lawyers always prepare every case with the expectation that it will go to trial. This gives us a significant advantage during the pre-trial stages, and it puts our clients in the best possible position to win.

Contact the California Employment Defense Attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP

The attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP have extensive experience handling California employment claims. We represent both plaintiffs and defendants, and our litigators know how to file successful motions for summary judgment in federal and state courts. If you are involved in litigation, the Tauler Smith LLP legal team can help you. Call 310-590-3927 or fill out the online contact form to schedule a free consultation.

OnlyFans Models Sue Unruly Agency

OnlyFans Models Sue Unruly Agency for Exploitation

OnlyFans Models Sue Unruly Agency

Two more OnlyFans models are suing Unruly Agency for exploitation. On the heels of Tauler Smith LLP lawsuits against Unruly Agency on behalf of exploited social media influencers, two more OnlyFans models have come forward with their own allegations of wildly improper and abusive conduct by Unruly. The models said that the big-name marketing agency has engaged in exploitative conduct that included pressuring them to pose for sexually explicit photos, posting nude images on their OnlyFans accounts without permission, and issuing threats when they attempted to exit their contracts.

To learn more about the shocking new allegations against Unruly Agency for exploiting influencers, keep reading.

Rolling Stone: Fitness Model Sarah Stage Sues Unruly Agency for Sexual Exploitation & Threats

Unruly Agency is one of the largest and most well-known agencies for social media influencers. The agency, which was founded by Tara “Elektra” Niknejad and Nicky Gathrite, represents clients that include Tana Mongeau and Harry Jowsey. With the recent surge in popularity for the OnlyFans platform, Unruly has become one of the go-to agencies for mainstream celebrities looking to break into what was once a taboo subscription-based model.

Sadly, many of Unruly’s clients have found that the agency’s behavior can be unsavory, manipulative, and illegal. A recent Rolling Stone article details how Sarah Stage and Jessica Quezada are the latest models to take legal action against Unruly and its affiliate agency Behave. Sarah Stage, a fitness model with a massive following on Instagram, has accused Unruly of using high-pressure tactics to try to convince her to post nude photographs against her wishes. Along those same lines, Quezada has accused Unruly of posting sexually explicit captions on her OnlyFans photos, as well as sending highly inappropriate messages containing sexually explicit content to her OnlyFans subscribers.

As detailed by Rolling Stone, Steele and Quezada also alleged in court documents that Unruly made direct threats when they tried to leave the agency. In fact, this is a theme running throughout most of the lawsuits filed against Unruly: the marketing agency is accused of threatening models who asked to get out of their contracts. In at least one instance, Unruly reportedly continued to operate the model’s OnlyFans account even after the contract was terminated – until she finally gained access and changed her passwords.

Tauler Smith LLP Represents OnlyFans Models in Lawsuits Against Unruly Agency

The recent charges that Unruly posted sexual images of the popular influencers and fitness models without their consent is in line with similar allegations brought by other models and online content creators against the social media management company. This includes documented abuses like engaging in sexually exploitative behavior, pressuring models into illegal contracts, and threatening the models with financially crippling legal action.

In a case filed last year by Tauler Smith LLP on behalf of an OnlyFans model identified only as “Jane Doe,” the model alleged that Unruly Agency surreptitiously took nude photographs of her and then posted them on her OnlyFans account as “revenge porn” retaliation. Jane Doe also said that Unruly unlawfully took control of her personal bank accounts and finances. Another model accused Unruly of posting a sexually explicit video to her OnlyFans page without her consent, as well as threatening and intimidating her when she expressed a desire to leave the agency.

Both models are being represented in OnlyFans lawsuits by L.A. social media litigator Robert Tauler. Mr. Tauler did not mince words when describing Unruly as “basically pimps” who take advantage of young, vulnerable women looking to earn an income as OnlyFans creators and social media influencers.

Contact the Los Angeles Social Media Litigators at Tauler Smith LLP

The new allegations against Unruly Agency would be shocking if they weren’t so commonplace: this is just the latest entry in a long list of known abuses by the marketing agency. If you are a model, lifestyle influencer, or other type of social media influencer who has been exploited by Unruly, you should speak with an attorney immediately.

Tauler Smith LLP is a California law firm that has experience with social media litigation. We help models get out of bad contracts with abusive agencies, and we also help them get the compensation they deserve. Call us at 310-590-3927 or fill out the online contact form to explore your legal options.

Rolling Stone Article on Unruly Agency Exploitation

Rolling Stone Article on Exploitation by Unruly Agency

Rolling Stone Article on Unruly Agency Exploitation

As the subscription-based platform OnlyFans has exploded in popularity over the past few years, so too has a cottage industry of management companies and agencies. One of the most well-known companies, Unruly Agency, is now facing new lawsuits from two influencers who allege that Unruly pressured them into posting sexually exploitative content and threatened them when they tried to leave the agency. In two separate filings, model and lifestyle influencers Sarah Stage and Jessica Quezada are accusing Unruly Agency of trapping them into exploitative contracts and posting nude and sexual photos without their consent.

[…]

In 2021, the Daily Beast reported that a former client identified only as Jane Doe was suing the agency, alleging that it had posted an NSFW video of her to her public page without her permission and that they had threatened her with legal action when she tried to leave the company. “These guys are basically pimps,” Jane Doe’s attorney Robert Tauler told the Daily Beast.

Read the full article on the Rolling Stone website.

PPE Fraud Lawyer

Tauler Smith Obtains Judgment for Fraud Against PPE Scam

The California business fraud lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP recently helped a client obtain a judgment for fraud against a PPE scam. After a two-day bench trial, a U.S. District Court granted 100% of the compensatory damages sought by plaintiff Solmark International in the case.

PPE Fraud Lawyer

L.A. Law Firm Tauler Smith LLP Secures Victory for Client in PPE Fraud Case

 

On February 4, 2022, federal judge Hon. Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. for the United States District Court for the Central District of California entered Judgment for Fraud on behalf of Tauler Smith client Solmark International against PPE scammers.

Solmark International is a major supplier of personal protective equipment to companies in the United States. The defendants in the case were PPE scammers who had engaged in a scheme to sell non-existent PPE (personal protective equipment) to national distributors like Solmark. The PPE fraud scheme began with the defendants falsely representing that they had acquired millions of masks to service Solmark International’s clients who were looking to return to work more safely during the COVID-19 pandemic. Once the defendants received a bank wire transfer for the PPE products, they effectively vanished. This resulted in a series of defaults from the defendants.

Solmark International then filed suit in 2020 with predecessor counsel, and the case was scheduled for trial in late-2021. Los Angeles law firm Tauler Smith LLP ultimately helped the plaintiff secure a favorable judgment and recover significant compensation.

Federal Court Issues Final Judgment in Favor of Solmark International

A final judgment was issued by United States District Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. on February 4, 2022. The specifics of the federal court’s ruling were as follows:

  • Compensatory Damages: The defendants were ordered to pay plaintiff Solmark International the sum of approximately $100,000.
  • Counterclaims Dismissed: The defendants’ counterclaims against Solmark International were dismissed.

Attorney Robert Tauler Fights for Victims of Business Fraud in California

“I am very pleased our team was able to obtain a fraud judgment against dishonest people who thought only about themselves at the expense of others during such a sensitive time in our history,” said L.A. business fraud attorney Robert Tauler. “I am fortunate to have clients like Solmark International that believe justice is worth fighting for.”

Tauler Smith LLP is a law firm with a history of success in California business fraud cases. Our experienced litigators have successfully represented clients in business disputes and fraud matters in both local California courts and federal courts. We understand the nuances of this complicated area of the law, and we have the institutional expertise needed to guide you through the legal system and get you the compensation you deserve.

Contact the Los Angeles Business Fraud Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

If you were a victim of business fraud, corporate fraud, or consumer fraud, the litigators at Tauler Smith LLP can help you. Call 310-590-3927 or fill out the online contact form to schedule a free consultation.

BuzzFeed Article on Unruly Agency Intimidation

BuzzFeed Article on Unruly Agency Intimidation

BuzzFeed Article on Unruly Agency Intimidation

BuzzFeed recently published an explosive article that provides information about the many allegations of unethical and illegal behavior by Los Angeles-based Unruly Agency. The talent agency has been accused of numerous transgressions: using deception to convince content creators to sign with Unruly, later threatening to sue clients for supposed contract breaches, taking control of clients’ personal bank accounts, and leaking nude photos of clients. All of this has left content creators who sign with Unruly feeling powerless and trapped.

BuzzFeed: Unruly Agency and Behave Agency Accused of Exploiting Online Content Creators

Unruly Agency is a major content marketing agency that represents a number of different influencers on OnlyFans and other social media platforms. Unruly also runs the Behave Agency, another online content management company with operations in Los Angeles. A large part of what Unruly and Behave do involves the day-to-day management of OnlyFans accounts belonging to content creators. This includes selling online content such as videos and photos, publicizing the creators’ work, and responding to messages sent by fans.

Given the staggering rise in the number of subscription-only platforms on the internet in the past few years, the market for online content creators has never been more competitive. Unruly has been able to capitalize on this by positioning itself as a reputable, reliable agency that is passionate about serving its clients. In fact, one of Unruly’s main selling points is that they can help content creators grow their brand by allowing them to reach a larger audience, which will translate into more followers and increased revenue.

For its story on Unruly, BuzzFeed News interviewed no fewer than 18 people and reviewed various documents reportedly showing that the talent agency was often misleading both clients and workers when it came to the details of contracts that were signed. At least two models who signed with Unruly said that company officials waived off their concerns about contract provisions by claiming that they were merely formalities. When the models attempted to get out of the contracts, however, those provisions were suddenly binding.

OnlyFans Models Hire Tauler Smith LLP for Legal Action Against Unruly Agency

Two former clients of Unruly recently enlisted the legal team at Tauler Smith LLP to represent them in civil suits against the talent agency. Both clients are young models whose lives were nearly ruined by Unruly. L.A. social media litigator Robert Tauler filed suit on behalf of the women in Los Angeles County Superior Court, seeking damages and injunctive relief.

Tauler called the typical Unruly contract “a Frankenstein of the worst provisions I’ve seen put together in one contract.” He said the contract is clearly unlawful, and that its main purpose appears to be to manipulate and gain leverage over the young women who make the mistake of signing with Unruly Agency.

Generally speaking, Unruly’s contracts are exploitative and grant the talent agency an unreasonable amount of control over clients’ personal lives. For example, several clients were locked into contracts with automatic renewal provisions. These legally questionable provisions basically forced the models to stay with the agency for at least three (3) years. Additionally, at least one contract used by Behave Agency gave the company authority to take out a life insurance policy on a client, as well as requiring the client to share private medical information with the agency.

OnlyFans Creators Say They Were Victims of Intimidation & Threats by Unruly Agency

One theme that runs throughout the many allegations made against Unruly Agency in the BuzzFeed article is that the company bullies and scares young female models, influencers, and online celebrities. Amia Miley, a former client of Unruly/Behave, said that many of the girls who sign with the agency are worried about retaliation, so they simply don’t say anything.

One OnlyFans model who did speak up said that the company pressured her to publish sexually explicit content on the internet even after she made it clear that she was not comfortable doing so. Remarkably, Unruly and its founders, Tara Niknejad and Nicky Gathrite, actually promote the agency as a strong advocate for female empowerment and women’s rights.

The young models interviewed by BuzzFeed News made several allegations of improper behavior and illegal conduct by Unruly Agency, including the following:

  • Unruly uses deceptive recruitment practices. One of the allegations against Unruly is that the talent agency uses misleading tactics and high-pressure sales pitches to convince content creators to sign long-term contracts.
  • The contracts signed by clients are unclear. The contracts that some clients signed allegedly included terms that conflicted with the terms discussed during contract negotiations with Unruly agents. For example, clients have reported specific details missing from the written contracts after Unruly had explicitly agreed to those details in conversations.
  • Unruly uses the threat of costly lawsuits to intimidate clients. Once an OnlyFans creator signs with Unruly, they are locked into what some are calling an exploitative contract. If the client later wants to opt out of the contract and leave the agency, they are reportedly threatened with a six-figure lawsuit that could cause financial ruin.
  • Unruly publishes nude images without consent. At least one OnlyFans model has accused Unruly of secretly taking nude photographs of her while she was changing clothes during a photo shoot. Moreover, the model says that the agency later released those nude images on social media without her knowledge or consent.
  • Unruly takes control of clients’ personal bank accounts. Multiple models said that Unruly switched out the banking information on their OnlyFans accounts, essentially replacing the client bank account with the agency’s bank account. As a result, Unruly initially gets all of the income generated on OnlyFans, and then the clients are entirely dependent on the talent agency to pay out any money earned. Additionally, at least one client said that the agency was repeatedly late when it came to making payments.

Unruly Agency Also Accused of Exploiting Workers and Committing Wage Theft

According to the BuzzFeed investigation of Unruly Agency’s business practices, the company’s exploitative tactics are not limited to just clients. A number of current and former workers for Unruly have accused the agency of violating California employment laws by misclassifying the employees as independent contractors so that they could illegally underpay them. At least six (6) workers are reportedly planning to file lawsuits against Unruly for wage theft.

Contact Los Angeles Social Media Lawyer Robert Tauler

Although the BuzzFeed article focuses on alleged abuses of power and unlawful conduct by Unruly Agency, it also serves to highlight a broader problem among many talent agencies in California that routinely take advantage of OnlyFans creators, Instagram models, and other social media influencers. If you are a content creator or influencer who has been exploited by a talent agency, Los Angeles social media litigator Robert Tauler and the Tauler Smith LLP legal team can help you. Call 310-590-3927 or submit the contact form.

BuzzFeed

Unruly Agency Accused of Exploiting OnlyFans Creators

BuzzFeed

A growing chorus of clients and current and former workers at the social media management company Unruly say the agency has engaged in deceptive recruitment practices that locked them into agreements threatening six-figure penalties for contract breaches and handing over expansive control of their personal lives, while demanding work they hadn’t realized they’d signed up for and, in some cases, publishing nude images of them without their consent.

Read the full article on BuzzFeed.