Brittanya Razavi Lawsuit: Trafficking Claims, OnlyFans, and Status

The Brittanya Razavi lawsuit is a federal civil case in which three women accuse the former reality television personality and adult content creator of sex trafficking, sexual coercion, and financial exploitation through OnlyFans accounts she allegedly controlled in their names. Filed as Colvin et al v. Fenix International Limited et al (Case No. 2:22-cv-01395) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, the suit also names OnlyFans’ parent company, Fenix International Limited, as a defendant. It remains pending as of mid-2025, with no trial date set.¹

What the Plaintiffs Say Happened

The plaintiffs allege that Razavi targeted two financially vulnerable women — a former Las Vegas showgirl and an immigrant — by offering housing and promising quick money and fame if they made adult content under her management. According to the complaint, Razavi presented herself as a “mother figure” to earn their trust.²

Once they agreed, the suit says, Razavi used the women’s personal identification documents and Social Security numbers to open OnlyFans accounts that only she could access. Those accounts allegedly brought in more than $1.3 million. Plaintiffs say Razavi had promised a 50% share of the earnings but paid them closer to 10%, keeping the rest in accounts she controlled.²

The complaint’s most serious claims involve coercion. The plaintiffs allege Razavi plied them with alcohol to pressure them into performing sex acts on camera, sometimes with other people. When they resisted, Razavi allegedly said she would “just talk to you again when you’re drunk.” The suit further alleges that one woman was raped while intoxicated and that the resulting video was posted online.²

Why OnlyFans Is Also a Defendant

OnlyFans operates on a revenue split in which creators keep 80% of earnings and the platform retains 20%. The plaintiffs allege that Fenix International collected its share of the more than $1.3 million generated through the accounts Razavi allegedly controlled, and that its business relationship with her enabled the exploitation. The theory tracks a 2008 amendment to the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, which allows liability for parties who knowingly benefit financially from a trafficking venture.³²

Who Is Suing and Who Is Being Sued

The three plaintiffs are Lauren Colvin, Youree Gemmill, and Pathamawan Hanford. Colvin originally filed in June 2021 in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County, Nevada; Gemmill and Hanford joined as the case progressed, and it was removed to federal court in August 2022. A Second Amended Complaint filed on August 14, 2024, is the version that introduced the sex trafficking allegations that drew wider public attention.⁴⁵¹

Seven defendants are named:

Brittanya Razavi, the principal individual defendant.
Marcello Razavi, an individual defendant and counterclaimant.
Meow Gang Production Studios, Inc., a corporate defendant grouped with the Razavis.
DG Media & Entertainment Group, Inc., another corporate defendant associated with the Razavis.
Fenix International Limited, the British parent company of OnlyFans.
Fenix Internet LLC and Fenix US Inc., additional OnlyFans-affiliated entities.⁶

How the Defendants Have Responded

Razavi’s attorney has “categorically” denied all of the allegations. The Razavi defendants have also filed counterclaims against the three plaintiffs, though the specifics are not detailed in the available court records. OnlyFans has denied violating sex-trafficking laws in connection with the case.²⁵

No criminal charges have been filed against Razavi in connection with the allegations. This is a civil lawsuit.⁴

Where the Case Stands

The lawsuit is pending before Judge Cristina D. Silva and Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts. Discovery deadlines had been stayed as of October 2024 while the Fenix entities were served and answered the complaint. As of July 2025, the most recent docket activity was a stipulation formalizing the withdrawal of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan as co-counsel for Fenix International, with McDonald Carano LLP continuing to represent the company. No trial date has been scheduled, and no settlement has been reported.¹⁷

1
Docket Alarm. Colvin et al v. Fenix International Limited et al
2
Reuters. OnlyFans Sex Trafficking Special Report
3
U.S. Department of Justice. Key Legislation – Human Trafficking
4
Unicourt. Lauren Colvin vs. Brittanya Razavi
5
Leagle. Colvin v. Razavi, 2:22-cv-01395-CDS-DJA
6
Unicourt. Colvin et al v. Fenix International Limited dba OnlyFans et al
7
Justia. Colvin v. Razavi, Doc. 60