A federal judge in Texas has dismissed a lawsuit brought by an OnlyFans creator who accused X (formerly Twitter) and its owner, Elon Musk, of violating federal law tied to the non-consensual sharing of explicit images.

According to Bloomberg Law, the case centered on a content creator identified as John Doe, who produces adult material on OnlyFans and through various adult film studios.

According to the complaint, a third party allegedly took his paid content and reposted it on X without permission. The plaintiff argued that the platform should be held responsible under a federal law often referred to as the “revenge porn statute,” which prohibits knowingly sharing intimate images without consent.

But Chief Judge Reed O’Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas didn’t see it that way.

In his ruling, O’Connor made it clear that the law is designed to protect private content—not material that was created for public or commercial distribution. The judge pointed to the statute’s wording, which specifically excludes “commercial pornographic content” unless it was created through “force, fraud, misrepresentation, or coercion.”

The plaintiff attempted to argue that the reposted material fell into that exception, claiming the third party gained access to the content through deceptive means.

However, the court rejected that interpretation, stating that expanding the definition that far would effectively erase the distinction between private and commercial content.

“The statute’s structure reflects that liability turns on whether the depicted individual intended to keep his or her images private,” the court explained.

The decision also relied heavily on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a law that shields platforms from liability for content posted by users.

The judge reaffirmed that X qualifies for that protection, noting that courts have historically applied Section 230 broadly in cases involving user-generated content.

The plaintiff tried to get around that by arguing the case involved intellectual property, which can be an exception to Section 230. But the court shut that down, clarifying that the law in question is about privacy, not ownership of content.

Because of those findings, the court dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled.