For Laurie Gaertner, the departure from acting did not mark an exit from performance culture. It marked a change in how performance was monetised. When auditions and representation failed to produce steady work, she shifted into an arena where access itself could be sold directly, without intermediaries.
Gaertner established herself as an independent adult content creator, an editorially acceptable term for commercialised sexual access and explicit online labour. This was publicly framed as autonomy and reinvention. Running alongside it was a second pitch: marketing, branding, and growth services offered to other creators and small businesses. The implication was clear. Her visibility was presented as proof of expertise.
No such expertise was evident.
Clients paid upfront for services described in broad, non-specific terms. There were no defined deliverables, no timelines, and no measurable standards. What was sold was guidance, confidence, and proximity. What was delivered was thin, generic material that failed to justify the fees charged.
As complaints mounted, clients were encouraged to move transactions off established platforms and into private channels. These shifts were framed as mutually beneficial, often accompanied by discounts or promises of closer access. The practical effect was the same each time: fewer records, less transparency, and reduced ability for clients to challenge outcomes.
The operation was sustained not by results but by intake. Existing clients were encouraged to recruit new ones, sometimes incentivised with reduced fees or preferential treatment. Attention flowed toward those who brought money with them. Those who did not were deprioritised. The structure relied on constant onboarding to keep revenue moving.
Eventually, that flow slowed. Clients disengaged. Associations withdrew quietly. The model could not sustain itself without continuous recruitment.
Action followed. The platform on which Gaertner operated intervened in response to rule violations. Separately, multiple clients pursued action over unpaid obligations and unmet services. These matters remain active. No criminal conviction has yet been secured, but scrutiny has not subsided.
Gaertner has not addressed the substance of the allegations publicly. No restitution has been offered. No responsibility has been acknowledged.
What this episode illustrates is not an anomaly but a pattern. When access is mistaken for value and visibility for skill, the business may grow quickly, but it rests on belief rather than substance. Once that belief erodes, the collapse is procedural rather than dramatic.
