OnlyFans Murder Trial: Can You Really Consent to a Crime?
What began as a private business arrangement between an online content creator and one of her subscribers has evolved into one of California’s most closely watched criminal cases.
The $11,000 session, organized through OnlyFans and conducted in a quiet Escondido suburb, ended in tragedy when the client was later found dead and the performer taken into custody.
Now, prosecutors and defense attorneys are confronting a question that few American courts have ever had to answer: Can a person truly consent to their own death?
The case of Michaela Rylaarsdam, a 25-year-old model and digital creator, has captivated both the legal community and ethicists alike.
It sits at the intersection of sex work, consent law, and the monetization of online intimacy, challenging courts to determine whether “consensual harm” can ever be lawful and where criminal liability begins once the performance ends.
The Fatal Session That Sparked a Legal Firestorm
In April 2023, investigators say Rylaarsdam visited the Escondido, CA home of Michael Dale, a 56-year-old tech consultant and long-time subscriber, to act out an elaborate bondage fantasy.
Evidence shows Dale was wrapped tightly in Saran Wrap and duct tape, with a plastic bag eventually placed over his head. He died of asphyxia, ruled a homicide by the medical examiner.
Prosecutors charge Rylaarsdam with murder, arguing that no amount of prior agreement can excuse conduct likely to cause death.
The defense insists the encounter was fully consensual and that Dale understood and requested each act.
Under California law, however, consent is not a defense to serious bodily injury or homicide.
Consent vs. Criminal Liability
This case revives precedent from People v. Samuels (1967), where California’s appellate court ruled that a person cannot legally consent to assault likely to cause great bodily harm.
The same reasoning underpins the state’s argument today: mutual agreement cannot erase criminal culpability if the act itself is inherently dangerous.
Can consent be used as a legal defense in a criminal case?
Generally no, not when serious injury or death occurs. “Consent” means both people agreed, but the law stops protecting consent once the behavior becomes life-threatening.
You can agree to physical risk in sports or medical care, yet you cannot legally agree to be assaulted, maimed, or killed. Courts treat those results as crimes even if the victim gave permission.
The Creator Economy on Trial
The prosecution’s case relies heavily on video clips and messages recovered from Michaela Rylaarsdam’s phone, which allegedly show the victim struggling for breath as she filmed.
What was meant to be content for subscribers has become the central evidence in a murder prosecution - a chilling example of how the boundaries between digital performance and criminal liability are blurring.
Legal observers note this may be the first U.S. homicide case directly linked to paid fetish content creation, raising complex questions about the line between consent, commerce, and culpability.
If prosecutors succeed, courts could begin scrutinizing the creator client relationship more closely, shaping how future cases handle digital consent contracts, liability waivers, and platform responsibility within the adult-content economy.
Rylaarsdam’s own device may ultimately determine her fate: prosecutors cite minute-by-minute footage that places her at the scene and contradicts her version of events, while the defense maintains the recording depicts a role-play gone tragically wrong.
Across the U.S., courts are struggling with this new wave of digital self-incrimination, where creators record everything for subscribers only for that same material to later appear as prosecution evidence.
Beyond the legal complexities lies a deeper social challenge: can jurors remain impartial when “OnlyFans” and “fetish” dominate headlines? Studies suggest moral bias can cloud judgment, leading juries to equate sexual autonomy with recklessness.
A conviction could send a chilling message to digital creators who believe contracts and consent forms offer legal protection. An acquittal, meanwhile, could ignite debate over whether the justice system risks normalizing consensual violence.
Either outcome will ripple through the ongoing conversation around sex-work regulation, autonomy, and criminal accountability in the digital age.
Expert Context
Legal commentators observing the case note that it reopens an old but unresolved debate about personal autonomy and state protection.
It asks whether the law should intervene in consensual acts that lead to fatal harm, or whether adult choice must remain paramount even when the outcome is irreversible.
That tension between individual freedom and public duty is exactly what makes this trial historic.
No verdict has yet been announced, but the implications are profound.
The Michaela Rylaarsdam case forces American law to confront what happens when intimacy, money, and technology overlap.
As judges, juries, and lawmakers debate whether consent can ever justify deadly harm, this trial could set new boundaries for sex-work safety, digital evidence, and autonomy in the age of online content creation.
Michaela Rylaarsdam Still Held Without Bail as OnlyFans Murder Case Moves Toward Trial
As of October 2025, Michaela Rylaarsdam remains in custody without bail following her arraignment on September 27.
The court previously ruled that sufficient evidence existed to proceed to trial after a September 3 preliminary hearing, where prosecutors argued that Rylaarsdam acted with implied malice during a fatal fetish session with client Michael Dale.
Testimony presented by investigators and forensic experts described Dale as being found bound in Saran Wrap and duct tape, with a plastic bag over his head, the cause of death ruled as asphyxia.
During cross-examination, the defense highlighted Dale’s high blood-alcohol level and Rylaarsdam’s attempts to perform CPR before paramedics arrived, asserting the encounter was both consensual and tragically accidental.
Despite these arguments, the judge denied bond, citing the seriousness of the charge and potential flight risk.
No trial date has been set, but the case continues to capture national attention for its unprecedented intersection of consent, digital evidence, and criminal liability in the context of online content creation.
People Also Ask (PAA)
What is the Michaela Rylaarsdam OnlyFans murder case about?
The case centers on 25-year-old OnlyFans model Michaela Rylaarsdam, who is accused of killing her client, Michael Dale, during a paid fetish session in California. Prosecutors allege she wrapped Dale in plastic and tape, causing fatal asphyxia. The defense says the encounter was fully consensual and part of a prearranged fantasy.
Can you legally consent to being harmed or killed in California?
No. Under California law, consent is not a valid defense when an act results in serious injury or death. Courts recognize consent for limited physical risk, such as sports or medical care, but not for harm that endangers life. Even if both parties agree, deadly acts are still treated as crimes.
Why is this OnlyFans case legally significant?
This is believed to be the first U.S. homicide case linked to paid fetish content creation, raising new legal questions about consent, digital contracts, and the blurred line between performance and reality. The trial could influence how courts handle digital evidence, creator–client relationships, and liability in the content economy.
What evidence are prosecutors relying on?
Investigators say Rylaarsdam’s phone footage and text messages show Dale struggling for breath while restrained. These recordings—originally intended for subscriber content—are now central to the prosecution’s case. Forensic experts also testified that Dale’s cause of death was asphyxia.
Has Michaela Rylaarsdam been convicted?
Not yet. As of October 2025, Rylaarsdam remains in custody without bail, awaiting trial. A judge found enough evidence to proceed, but no trial date has been set. She faces potential murder charges if found guilty.
What could this case mean for other content creators?
Legal analysts say the outcome could reshape how the law treats digital consent forms and off-platform interactions. If prosecutors win, creators who meet clients offline may face greater legal scrutiny, and platforms like OnlyFans could face pressure to tighten safety and liability policies.
