Cecilia Sopeña invokes right to be forgotten after leaving cycling and OnlyFans

Cecilia Sopera demands deletion of digital past after quitting cycling and OnlyFans

Cyclist Cecilia Sopera, boasting over 100 victories in her record, announced on Instagram that she is ending her career as an adult content creator and has invoked the right to be forgotten under Article 17 of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The athlete, who once described herself as a "self-managed porn actress," is demanding the removal from the internet of all traces of her time as an erotic model. "I have the right to protect my image. I have the right to be forgotten," she stated. This announcement trinc her claim that harassment suffered after joining OnlyFans led her to abandon competitive sports.

Exact demands and legal basis

Sopera argues that her new phase is "more conscious, more orderly, more dignified, and deeply consistent" with who she has become. In her statement, she explains that she has initiated procedures with her legal team to remove from the internet "everything that no longer reflects who I am or how I wish to be remembered." The legal foundation she cites is the right to be forgotten within the GDPR, a mechanism allowing individuals to request the deletion of personal data when it is no longer necessary for its original purpose or when they object to its processing.

The cyclist warns that "anything circulating outside authorized channels — however minor — will face legal proceedings backed by law." However, she clarifies that she will not close her private accounts immediately: "some platforms will remain open for a while due to tax management and professional commitments. But they no longer represent my public identity."

Limits of the right to be forgotten with existing contracts

Legal analyses highlight a major obstacle: the right to be forgotten does not apply equally to self-created content versus material licensed to third parties. Regarding videos filmed with production companies, the prevailing interpretation is that the artist signed documents transferring her image rights, meaning she cannot unilaterally demand their removal. This has historically been the industry's stance: those who sign image releases lose control over the resulting material.

This distinction is crucial as it defines the boundary between what Sopera can delete herself — her own content on subscription platforms — and what remains beyond her reach. The right to be forgotten protects against unauthorized dissemination but does not nullify freely signed contracts.

Reaction: From mockery to skepticism about earnings

The announcement triggered mostly hostile reactions. Some comments question the consistency of her narrative, arguing that someone who monetized their image for years cannot now expect society to forget what she herself published. Others focus on money. Some claim that if she had truly earned the attributed figures, she would stay on the platform, while others counter that the business dried up and retirement is just an exit strategy when it stops paying.

The debate over amounts is particularly opaque. There are no verifiable data on her income, and circulating estimates range from those attributing millions to those doubting her subscriber base could sustain such revenue. The only confirmed figure is her sporting success: over 100 wins.

Collateral damage nobody disputes

Beyond the controversy over the right to be forgotten, opposing views agree on one point: the impact on the protagonist's children. It is noted that classmates may recall their mother's past for years, causing harm that no law can repair. This argument carries significant weight among those who, despite disliking the persona, acknowledge that third parties pay the price.

Sopera concludes her statement with a phrase summarizing her position: "My name now deserves silence, honor, and direction." The law will determine how far that silence extends. What it cannot command is respect from others.