Overview
Plaintiff in Doe v. Bonnell (1-25-cv-20757). Online content creator known publicly as “Pxie.” Filed under pseudonym “Jane Doe” in federal court February 18, 2025, but has publicly identified herself as the plaintiff on her own social media channels. Alleges that Steven K. Bonnell II shared an intimate video of the two of them, recorded in September 2020, with a Discord user in October 2022 without her knowledge or consent, and that the video subsequently leaked to KiwiFarms in November 2024 along with ~26 other clips and ~300 pages of chat logs.
Key Facts
- First met Bonnell: 2018, online, when she was 19 and he was in his 30s.
- Single in-person encounter: September 2020. Intimate video recorded during this encounter.
- Shared with “Rose” (i.e., Solo): October 2022. Plaintiff alleges she did not know about this sharing at the time.
- Leak: November 29, 2024 — video surfaces on KiwiFarms along with the larger Discord drop.
- Harm alleged in complaint: “hundreds of insulting and harassing messages,” false claims about exchanging sex for professional favors, “severe emotional distress,” career disruption.
- Damages sought: >$1 million, injunctive relief, attorney’s fees.
- Statutes cited: federal intimate-image-protection / “revenge porn” statute, Florida cyber sexual harassment law, privacy torts, intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Motion to continue trial: filed April 8, 2026 (ECF 227); hearing April 21, 2026.
- Counsel: Joan Schlump Peters (JSP Law), Gustavo Daniel Lage, Carlos Alberto Garcia Perez (SMGQ Law).
- Restraining order: Per earlier reporting, Pxie also filed for a restraining order against Bonnell at some point during the feud.
- Other accusers she has cited in pleadings: Melina Göransson (Bonnell’s ex-wife), “Stasia,” and “Chaeiry”; she alleges roughly fifteen women reached out after the leak reporting they had also received sexually explicit images of other women from Bonnell.
Newsletter Relevance
Pxie is the person the statute was designed to protect, and she is suing the only defendant the statute can reach. Her injury is real — the video was made of her, distributed without her consent, and published to a hostile audience. The question the article You Can’t Sue the Catfish raises is not whether her harm is legitimate (it is) but whether the legal apparatus routing her relief against Destiny maps to the actual chain of causation. The catfisher is the proximate cause. Destiny is the reachable one.
Connections
- Steven K. Bonnell II — defendant; former partner
- Solo (Ben Conway) — UK catfisher who leaked the video (not a party)
- Rose (AH) — teen whose identity Solo used; deposed
- Doe v. Bonnell (1-25-cv-20757) — active civil case
Source Appearances
- Rose deposition — Doe v Bonnell — establishes Rose was not a party to her own impersonation, complicating but not eliminating Pxie’s theory of Destiny’s culpability
- Pxie Substack: ‘I will be suing Steven Kenneth Bonnell II’ — Pxie’s own public announcement; describes learning of leak Nov 29, 2024; states month of legal consultations before filing; raises “proxy” theory of distribution; launches GiveSendGo fundraiser
- Florida streamer Destiny sued over cyber sexual harassment: court documents — early mainstream press coverage summarizing her complaint’s allegations
- Doe v Bonnell ECF132 — Motion to Dismiss (Abby Subpoena History) — Bonnell’s MTD argues her case fails for lack of CARDII jurisdiction; her evidence characterized as insufficient
- Doe v Bonnell ECF139 — Plaintiff Opposition to MTD (False Minor Footnote) — her attorneys advance the intertwined-merits doctrine and the CDN reachability theory; contains the false Footnote 2 minor allegation
- Doe v Bonnell ECF163 — Motion for Protective Order (Deposition Scheduling) — her deposition no-show (Nov 3, 2025) is the central event; Bonnell seeks sanctions
- Doe v Bonnell ECF183 — Rule 11 Sanctions Motion (False Minor Allegation) — Bonnell targets her counsel’s filing of the false minor allegation; she declines to retract
- Doe v Bonnell ECF210 — Motion for Summary Judgment — she admitted at the June 3, 2025 hearing she had no post-CARDII transmission evidence; Bonnell cites this as dispositive
- Doe v Bonnell ECF216 — Plaintiff Rule 56(d) Motion to Defer MSJ — she seeks deferral of MSJ citing outstanding depositions and Hague Convention discovery; reports Bonnell’s document production was deficient
- Doe v Bonnell ECF218 — Bonnell Opposition to Rule 56(d) Motion — Bonnell argues her own procedural failures foreclose Rule 56(d) relief
- Doe v Bonnell ECF222 — Bonnell Omnibus Motion in Limine — Bonnell seeks to strip her trial pseudonym; she opposes
- Doe v Bonnell ECF230 — Bonnell Opposition to Plaintiff MIL — her MIL exclusion requests contested; Judge Torres’s symmetry observation cited (she also distributed a video of an ex)
- Doe v Bonnell ECF231 — Plaintiff Opposition to Omnibus MIL — her counsel argues Rose deposition confirms minor-age context, Abbymc exclusion improper, CARDII § 6851(b)(3)(B) pseudonymity applies at trial
- Doe v Bonnell ECF235 — Bonnell Opposition to Trial Continuance — her continuance motion (ECF 227) is opposed; Bonnell argues she is estopped and failed to show good cause
Open Questions
- What specifically is the theory of Destiny’s knowledge state at the time of the October 2022 share? Did he know “Rose” was a stranger, a fan, a catfish, or something else?
- Has the court ruled on the continuance motion (hearing: April 21, 2026)?
- Will the pseudonym be maintained through trial under the CARDII statute?
- What is the status of the Hague Convention request directed at Melina Göransson in Sweden?