[lich_king]

> If they do like it, what's the issue?

Are you serious? However goofy that sounds, they paid for a specific fantasy. They would not have paid if you advertised the service as "talk dirty with a random dude in India". If the reason they paid for this service is that they were promised a specific person, that's fraud. As simple as that.

Your judgment about whether the services are equivalent doesn't matter. If I pay you for Gucci socks, and you intentionally send me cheaper HZBZZYXY socks from Amazon instead, that's fraud even if they're still socks.

[overfeed]

> If I pay you for Gucci socks, and you intentionally send me cheaper HZBZZYXY socks

The difference is t he product is 'blessed' by the official seller: Would you feel defrauded if Gucci sends you the Gucci-branded socks you ordered, but you discover later they were made by the HZBZZYXY factory in Guangdong rather than by an Italian master sock-craftsman?

[BoingBoomTschak]

That question falls entirely under the legal concept of false advertising. Depends on what Gucci proclaimed.

[overfeed]

What do you think of fast-food chains using of idealized-product-shots for ads and menu pictures that look nothing like their actual product? The.markerting uses pictures of products that take hours to prepare by 'food stylists' in a specialist kitchen/studio[1], and are often not even edible, but look great on camera.

Apocryphally, motor oil is sometimes used as a maple-syrup stunt-double. Is that false advertising to you? If so, why would an OnlyFans model be more culpable than McDonalds or Wendy's?

1. https://youtu.be/FBP-DxfZCgo

[DANmode]

Good framing.

[Lapsa]

Jamtarians pride themselves with such deeds