OFM agencies and creators attorneys

Yes. OFM agency activity, consisting in providing services to a creator in exchange for a commission, is lawful in France provided it does not cross the elements of procuring as defined by article 225-5 of the French Criminal Code: aiding or assisting prostitution, sharing revenue derived directly from prostitution, or pressuring someone into it.

Qualification depends on the actual content published and on the agency's business model, not just on the platform's name. A case-by-case analysis, formalised in a compliance memo, is essential.

The main risk is qualification of aggravated procuring (article 225-7 of the French Criminal Code), punishable by up to ten years' imprisonment and 1,500,000 euros' fine when committed in an organised group or via an electronic communication network. Add to this the risks of money laundering (article 324-1), undeclared work (articles L.8221-1 et seq. of the French Labour Code) and AML-CFT breaches.

Prevention relies on a rigorous service contract, no control over the creator and full traceability of flows.

Reclassification as an employment contract relies on the cluster of indicators developed by the French Court of Cassation: subordination, integration into an organised service, provision of equipment, lack of own clientele. To limit this risk, the service contract must preserve the creator's autonomy on schedules, content choices, equipment and direct relationship with subscribers.

Operational practices (imposed schedules, locked chat scripts, financial sanctions) must be rewritten to remain compatible with an independent service.

No statute caps the commission of an OFM agency. The higher the percentage charged, the greater the risk of reclassification as sharing revenue from prostitution or as a leonine clause, especially where the commission is not justified by identifiable, proportionate services.

The contract must clearly distinguish service remuneration (chatting, growth, marketing) from other flows and provide for verifiable monthly reporting.

Yes, provided it is limited in time, scope and territory and proportionate to the service rendered. Unlimited, perpetual or all-platforms exclusivity carries a serious risk of nullity for breach of freedom of trade and contractual freedom. A safe template provides for twelve to twenty-four months of exclusivity over a defined scope, with a reasonable exit indemnity.

OnlyFans and MYM terms of service provide that the account is opened in the name of the natural person who registered. Legal ownership of the account therefore lies in principle with the creator. However, some agencies contractually impose account assignment or access control, which can amount to a leonine clause or an infringement of image rights.

Drafting must unambiguously set out ownership of the account, content, audience data and access credentials.

An OFM agency established in France is liable for VAT on its services once it exceeds the basic franchise thresholds. When invoicing creators established in other EU Member States, it may fall under the OSS one-stop-shop regime provided by articles 298 sexdecies et seq. of the French General Tax Code. For extra-EU flows, the IOSS regime may apply to B2C services.

A prior tax review is needed to secure the structure.

Banks and payment institutions apply their own risk policies (de-risking) and often exclude adult-content activities from their terms of use. This closure can be challenged when abusive, discriminatory or imposed without reasonable notice. Referral to the banking ombudsman under article L.316-1 of the French Monetary and Financial Code, then to the emergency judge, allows redress.

To limit debanking, a robust KYC and AML-CFT file must be built from account opening.

Yes. Several routes exist: amicable termination, termination for non-performance under article 1224 of the French Civil Code, action for nullity for vitiated consent (articles 1130 et seq.) or termination for significant imbalance under article 1171 of the Civil Code or article L.442-1 of the French Commercial Code depending on the status.

The best route depends on the contractual situation, documented breaches and the urgency to recover the account and revenue.

Reaction must be immediate. First, identify the disseminating sites and hosts. Second, send DMCA notifications and LCEN reports under article 6 of the French Act for confidence in the digital economy. Third, initiate accelerated proceedings on the merits under article 6-I 8° of the LCEN (as amended by the SREN Act of 21 May 2024) to obtain removal under penalty against hosts and access providers.

Fourth, file a criminal complaint for non-consensual dissemination of sexual content under article 226-2-1 paragraph 2 of the French Criminal Code (two years' imprisonment and a €60,000 fine) and, where applicable, for invasion of privacy under article 226-1 of the French Criminal Code when the initial capture was fraudulent, together with infringement of image rights.

An e-reputation and delisting strategy completes the litigation.

Yes. Since the SREN Act of 21 May 2024 securing and regulating the digital space, article 226-8-1 of the French Criminal Code specifically punishes the dissemination of algorithmically generated content of a sexual nature involving a person without their consent. Penalties are aggravated when dissemination occurs online.

This offence adds to the classic qualifications of invasion of privacy and infringement of image rights. The victim may act both criminally and civilly to obtain removal and compensation.

The SAS and SASU are the most flexible forms for an OFM agency, given their statutory freedom and the social regime of the executive treated as employee. The SARL or EURL may suit smaller structures. Beyond the form, articles must anticipate investor entry, sale and AML-CFT compliance. A holding may be relevant to ring-fence risk and prepare a future exit.

The choice depends on projected turnover, number of partners and asset strategy.

The micro-BNC regime is capped at EUR 77,700 of annual revenue in 2026 and remains suitable at the start. Beyond, sole proprietorship under the actual regime or incorporation as EURL or SASU allows deduction of actual expenses and remuneration optimisation. The SASU offers better social protection through the assimilated-employee regime but costs more in contributions.

The choice is case-by-case, integrating projected revenue, personal situation and activity horizon.

Fees are billed by time spent or on a flat-fee basis, depending on the mission, and formalised in a fee agreement compliant with article 10 of the French Act of 31 December 1971. For management-contract drafting, pre-acquisition agency audit or exit procedure, a flat fee is generally proposed after a first scoping meeting.

Criminal defence and complex litigation matters are billed by time spent with capped budgets. Cost transparency is total.

No. Article 4 of the national rules of the French Bar prohibits a lawyer from acting where there is an actual or potential conflict of interest. INFLUXIO runs a systematic check before any engagement and accepts only one side per case. If a conflict is identified mid-mission, the firm withdraws. This discipline is a key condition of our credibility with both audiences.

The firm guarantees a first-line response within 24 hours on any OFM matter, whether an ongoing leak, debanking, URSSAF audit or summons by an investigation service. A confidential meeting is then scheduled in person in Paris, Brussels or by video. Confidentiality is covered by attorney-client privilege from the very first exchange.