OnlyFans said it was inaccurate to claim that it “will largely be left to regulate itself”, as video sharing platforms are subject to regulation by Ofcom.  It also expressed concern that Newsnight, which made the video, provided insufficient information prior to the broadcast of  the evidence it had of Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM).  OnlyFans further alleged that, in failing to provide this information, Newsnight prevented the proper investigation of serious allegations.  Finally it stated the BBC failed to report that the “third-party” 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: “The government’s 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”.  Ofcom’s regulatory responsibilities in relation to harmful material and children oblige Video-Sharing Platforms to institute “appropriate age assurance and/or parental control measures to protect under-18s”. 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’s 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’s 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.  But the BBC 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 “OnlyFans says it’s impossible to verify claims without evidence”.  

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.  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.  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.  It was therefore evident that the images were CSAM and originated on the OnlyFans platform.  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’s safeguarding procedures and processes.
Not Upheld