Summary of "'Clavicular' Allegedly Injected Influencer with Drug on Livestream: Lawsuit"

Overview of the Lawsuit

A Law & Crime segment reports on a newly filed lawsuit accusing influencer Clavvicular (real name Braden Peters) of:

Sexually assaulting an underage fan
Livestreaming an alleged illegal, unapproved fat-melting injection

Who the Lawsuit Targets and What Is Alleged

The plaintiff, Alexandra Vasalevna Mendoza, claims that she was a minor under Florida law at the time of the events and is now 18.

Alleged recruitment and conduct

Mendoza says Peters (“Clavvicular”):

Promoted “looks maxing”
Allegedly boasted online about using illegal drugs and engaging in sexual relationships facilitated by his fame
Recruited Mendoza through social media and allegedly paid her to create look-maxing content
Arranged for her to be brought to his family’s home, where she alleges she was served alcohol and sexually assaulted without consent

The Core Allegation: Injection During a Livestream

The lawsuit’s central claim is that in Delray Beach, Peters invited Mendoza and began a livestream on Kick.com, telling her he would inject a fat-dissolving product (claimed to be Aqualix) to improve her appearance.

Mendoza’s allegations about the injection

Mendoza alleges that:

Peters was not a licensed physician and had no authority to perform injections
The injection was performed while she was a minor, without parental/guardian consent
The “Aqualix” injection allegedly involved FDA warnings that were ignored—fat-dissolving injections are alleged to be not FDA-approved for that purpose and can be harmful
The livestream was monetized through viewer engagement (subscriptions/donations/tips)
She suffered harm, including a perforated cheek
Methamphetamine or another undisclosed substance may have been mixed into the injection, and she claims she appeared “drugged” on camera

She also claims she did not consent to the injection and did not consent to the session being streamed.

Reputational Harm and Claimed Financial Losses

After the incident(s), the complaint alleges Peters later launched a campaign to discredit Mendoza (purportedly in 2026), which she claims resulted in:

Lost sponsorships
A contract she says paid $15,000 per month with an online trading platform

Legal Claims in the Lawsuit

The plaintiff sues Peters under four causes of action:

Battery Intentional injection causing physical and psychological injury.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Fraud Allegedly misrepresenting qualifications/authority, failing to disclose lack of licensure/need for parental consent, and nondisclosure that Aqualix was allegedly not FDA-approved.
Unauthorized Publication of Name and Likeness (Florida law) The complaint alleges Peters used her image/name for profit from the livestream/replays without legally valid consent.

The segment notes Mendoza seeks compensatory damages and reserves the right to seek punitive/exemplary damages.

Responses From Both Sides

Mendoza’s attorney says Mendoza will tell her story through the legal process and expects Peters to respond through proper channels.
Peters’ attorney, Steve Kramer, denies the claims, calls them unproven allegations, and says Peters will vigorously defend himself.

Legal Analysis From Ben Chu (Johnny Depp’s Former Attorney)

The show brings on Ben Chu to analyze litigation strategy and evidence issues.

Allegations and potential strategy

Chu says the complaint is “disturbing” and also “puzzling” because it references alleged sexual assault in background, but it does not appear as a standalone cause of action.

He suggests:

Including it may be intended to prejudice the jury against Peters
Judges can sometimes strike irrelevant or gratuitous allegations

Damages and evidentiary requirements

On proving damages, Chu states that establishing physical and emotional injury may require:

Medical records
Expert testimony (e.g., disfigurement/skin injury or effects of an alleged substance)

Emotional distress standard

Chu emphasizes that the legal standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress is high—requiring “egregious” and “severe” distress—even if the facts are disturbing.

Video evidence considerations

Chu discusses how claims of video evidence (or actual video) can affect credibility, but he also notes victims’ behavior can be complex. He cautions that a defense argument that the plaintiff earlier appeared “fine” may not be decisive.

Targets beyond the individual defendant

Chu also explains that plaintiffs often pursue “deep-pocket” defendants, potentially aiming at platform or corporate entities (e.g., Kick) for unauthorized use/monetization—though Kick is not named in the complaint.

Potential Parallel Criminal Implications

Chu suggests that if authorities view the allegations (sexual assault and unauthorized injection of a minor) as criminal, a parallel criminal investigation could be likely.

He also notes that if criminal charges are filed, civil litigation can sometimes be affected—such as by a defendant’s right against self-incrimination.

Presenters / Contributors

Jesse Weber (host)
Ben Chu (attorney; Johnny Depp’s former lawyer)
Steve Kramer (Peters’ attorney; contributor via quoted statement in the segment)