Summary
Tampa NBC affiliate WFLA reported on the federal lawsuit filed against Steven K. Bonnell II (“Destiny”) by a Jane Doe identified by her influencer username Pxie, alleging non-consensual sharing of intimate images. The article, published the day after the complaint was filed (February 18-19, 2025), is the first mainstream local news coverage of Doe v. Bonnell (1-25-cv-20757) and summarizes the complaint’s key factual allegations, including Bonnell’s November 2024 written admission to sharing the video.
Key Points
- Lawsuit filed in the Southern District of Florida alleges Bonnell sent a sexual video to a “random fan” identified as “Rose” in 2022; two years later it appeared on Kiwi Farms and spread to other sites, garnering tens of thousands of views.
- Plaintiff Jane Doe (Pxie) had a sexual encounter with Bonnell in 2020; she had ~15,000 X followers and ~10,000 Twitch followers vs. Bonnell’s 840,000 YouTube subscribers and 700,000+ Twitch followers (now banned).
- Bonnell’s written admission, quoted verbatim: “Ughhhh there shouldn’t be no, I’m so sorry there’s literally no excuse, I’d had phone convos and stuff with this person they were fairly close to me…”
- Approximately 15 women reportedly contacted Pxie after the leak to report they had received sexually explicit images of other women from Bonnell without their consent.
- Complaint alleges Bonnell’s followers spread false claims that Pxie “exchanged sex for professional growth and favors,” and that Bonnell made disparaging comments calling her “just after his money.”
- Statutes cited: federal non-consensual intimate image law (15 U.S.C. § 6851), Florida cyber sexual harassment law, IIED, and privacy torts. Case calls for jury trial.
- WFLA did not receive a response from Bonnell for comment.
Newsletter Angles
- First mainstream media pickup of the lawsuit; establishes the public framing that dominated before the catfishing angle emerged — Destiny as knowing sharer of revenge porn, not as a partially-victimized catfish target.
- The gap between this early framing and what the Rose deposition later revealed is itself a story: how initial press coverage of creator lawsuits can calcify a narrative that discovery later complicates.
- Pxie’s stated aspiration of “being elected for office” — mentioned in the complaint and echoed here — adds a political layer the mainstream press largely ignored.
Entities Mentioned
- Steven K. Bonnell II — defendant; political streamer; written admission quoted
- Jane Doe (Pxie) — plaintiff; content creator; alleged victim of non-consensual image sharing
- Rose (AH) — identified only as “Rose,” the fan Bonnell allegedly shared the video with in 2022
Concepts Mentioned
- Streamer Civil Litigation — early mainstream press treatment of creator NCII lawsuit
- Reachability Routing — lawsuit reaches the identifiable defendant (Bonnell), not the catfisher who leaked publicly
Quotes
“Ughhhh there shouldn’t be no, I’m so sorry there’s literally no excuse, I’d had phone convos and stuff with this person they were fairly close to me, it’s worthless to say it at this point but I’m super sorry, there’s literally no excuse.” — Bonnell, November 2024 Discord message quoted in complaint
“The Videos disclosed by Bonnell were of a private nature and were never intended for public distribution. Defendant’s actions have caused Plaintiff severe emotional distress, humiliation, and reputational harm.” — complaint, as quoted by WFLA
“Plaintiff’s career as a political streamer has been adversely affected and her aspirations of being elected for office have been greatly diminished.” — complaint, as quoted by WFLA
Notes
Straight news summary of the complaint’s allegations; no independent verification of facts. Article predates the Rose deposition (October 2025) and the catfishing revelation — the “Rose” figure is described simply as a “random fan” with no indication of the Solo impersonation. The “approximately fifteen women” allegation is cited from the complaint without corroboration. Source is TV news coverage of a filed lawsuit; characterizations are plaintiff’s allegations, not findings.