Destiny Lawsuit: Pxie’s Claims, Federal Statute, and Sanctions

The Destiny lawsuit is a federal civil case filed in February 2025 by a content creator who goes by “Pxie,” accusing political streamer Steven K. Bonnell II of sharing a private sexual video of her without her consent in 2022. The complaint, filed under the pseudonym Jane Doe in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, brings claims under a new federal statute aimed at non-consensual intimate imagery and under Florida’s cyber sexual harassment law. The case is still active as of mid-2026, with no trial date set and no settlement reported.¹

What Pxie Alleges

Pxie and Bonnell are both politically oriented online creators who, according to the complaint, had a sexual encounter in 2020. The lawsuit alleges that in 2022 Bonnell sent a private sexual video of Pxie to a fan identified only as “Rose,” who then spread it to sites including the message board Kiwi Farms, from which it went viral.²

Pxie confronted Bonnell on Discord in November 2024. The complaint quotes his reply: “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.”² In January 2025, Bonnell reportedly told his followers that his only offense amounted to excessive consumption of adult content, a characterization Pxie disputes.

The complaint also alleges that roughly fifteen other women told Pxie they had received sexually explicit images from Bonnell of other women, without those women’s consent. No additional lawsuits from those individuals have been publicly reported.²

The Legal Claims and What Pxie Wants

The complaint raises four causes of action: violation of the federal Criminalizing and Reducing Distribution of Intimate Images Act (CARDII, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 6851); violation of Florida’s sexual cyberharassment statute, Florida Statute § 784.049; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and invasion of privacy.²

CARDII was enacted as part of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2022 and took effect on October 1, 2022.³ It gives a person whose intimate images were shared without consent a federal civil claim for injunctive relief, financial compensation up to $150,000, and attorney’s fees, and it allows plaintiffs to proceed under a pseudonym.⁴

The Florida statute prohibits willfully and maliciously sharing sexually explicit images without consent when the image contains or is linked to personal identifying information and is shared with intent to cause substantial emotional distress. On the civil side, it allows a victim to recover injunctive relief, the greater of $10,000 or actual damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees.⁵ No criminal charges against Bonnell have been publicly reported.⁶

The complaint does not demand a specific dollar figure. Pxie is asking a jury to set monetary damages, and she is asking the court to order Bonnell to stop distributing the material and to award attorney’s fees.² She has roughly 15,000 followers on X and 10,000 on Twitch, and says the exposure has damaged both her career and her political aspirations.

The Fight Over Whether the Federal Statute Applies

The central legal battle so far is whether CARDII can reach conduct in this case at all. Bonnell’s defense contends that the dissemination happened in April 2022, months before the statute took effect on October 1, 2022. Pxie counters that the sharing was ongoing: a Google Drive link containing the video remained accessible and was transmitted to at least one person after the effective date. A witness declaration from someone identified as “Abbymc” alleges the video was sent “on or about” November 3, 2023.⁷

Around September 2025, Judge Jacqueline Becerra granted Pxie leave to amend her complaint, though the motion was filed one day late. The court found the delay was not made in bad faith and that good cause existed under Rule 16 to cure potential jurisdictional defects. The judge declined to resolve the subject-matter jurisdiction question at that point, leaving Bonnell free to file a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) once the amended complaint was in.⁷

Sanctions Motion Over Missing Evidence

The litigation became more combative in mid-2026. Pxie filed a motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e)(2), alleging that Bonnell spoliated evidence. Bonnell opposed the motion on June 1, 2026, supported by affidavits from himself and his attorney Andrew Brettler and five exhibits. Pxie replied on June 8, 2026, attaching a letter from Brettler dated November 12, 2025.⁸ Bonnell also moved to seal certain materials tied to the dispute. No ruling on the sanctions motion has been made public.

Where the Case Stands

The case is docketed as Doe v. Bonnell, No. 1:25-cv-20757. It was filed on February 18, 2025, and the court granted Pxie’s request to proceed as Jane Doe the next day, followed by a protective order. Bonnell answered the complaint on March 14, 2025, asserted affirmative defenses, and demanded a jury trial.¹

In early April 2025, Pxie moved for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, prompting a status conference on April 4, 2025, and a trial-setting order the same day.¹ She filed a reply in support of those motions on May 2, 2025.⁹ No final ruling on the TRO or preliminary injunction has appeared in the available docket.

As of the most recent docket activity in June 2026, the case remains open, with more than 275 docket entries logged over roughly sixteen months. No trial date has been publicly confirmed, and nothing in the record indicates the case has been settled or dismissed.¹⁰⁸

1
CourtListener. Doe v. Bonnell, 1:25-cv-20757
2
WFLA. Florida Streamer Destiny Sued Over Cyber Sexual Harassment, Court Documents
3
GovRegs. 15 U.S.C. § 6851 Notes
4
U.S. Department of Justice. Sharing Intimate Images Without Consent: Know Your Rights
5
Florida Legislature. Florida Statute § 784.049 – Sexual Cyberharassment
6
Yahoo News. Florida Streamer Destiny Sued Over Cyber Sexual Harassment
7
Midpage. Doe v. Bonnell
8
PACER Monitor. Doe v. Bonnell, Case Filings
9
PACER Monitor. Doe v. Bonnell, Entry 45
10
CourtListener. Doe v. Bonnell – Parties