INSIDE THIS REPORT

Havana Saint accuses Adrien Broner of sexual battery and assault following several encounters in June. She claims Broner and livestreamer DeenTheGreat later made false sexual statements about her online. The lawsuit also targets streaming platform Kick with a negligence claim.

By Samuel López | USA Herald

Former four-division boxing champion Adrien Broner is facing a sweeping civil lawsuit in Los Angeles accusing him of repeatedly ignoring a woman’s refusals, attempting to force sexual contact and later using a livestream to imply that the two had been intimate.

The complaint, reviewed by USA Herald, was brought by a woman identified as Havana Saint. It names Broner, livestreamer Nurideen Shabazz—known online as DeenTheGreat—and streaming platform Kick as defendants.

Saint is pursuing sexual battery and assault claims against Broner. She also accuses Broner and Shabazz of defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, while alleging Kick was negligent in connection with the conduct and content broadcast through its platform.

The allegations trace back to June 2, 2026, when Saint says Broner invited her and several friends to an after-party and encouraged her to consume alcohol. According to the complaint, Saint eventually became too intoxicated to drive and accepted an offer to remain at the residence overnight.

What allegedly happened next forms the core of the case.

Saint claims Broner pressured her to engage in sexual intercourse and other sexual acts, exposed himself and grabbed her hand in an attempt to force sexual contact. She alleges that she repeatedly said no and specifically told Broner she was not interested in men and preferred women.

The complaint does not allege that Saint and Broner had sexual intercourse. To the contrary, Saint maintains that they never had sex.

Saint acknowledges that she returned to the residence on June 3. That fact is likely to become a focus of the defense, but it does not legally resolve the separate question of whether she consented to any alleged conduct. Saint claims Broner was angry that they had not been intimate the previous night and then attempted to pull or drag her upstairs despite another express refusal.

The complaint further anticipates another issue likely to surface in litigation: Saint says she laughed at certain moments during the encounter, but alleges that the laughter was a defensive response intended to conceal fear and discomfort—not evidence of consent.

Five days later, on June 8, Saint says she encountered Broner again at a separate livestream content residence in Los Angeles County. After becoming intoxicated, she alleges, Broner physically pulled her away from the residence and pressured her to accompany him to his Encino home.

Once there, Saint claims Broner again attempted to persuade her to have sex and that she again refused. Saint and her friends nevertheless remained at the home overnight. The following morning, she alleges, Broner poured ice water on her while broadcasting live, causing humiliation and emotional distress.

The lawsuit then moves from alleged physical misconduct to statements transmitted to an online audience.

Although Saint insists no sexual intercourse occurred, she claims Broner later made livestream comments implying the opposite, including an explicit statement suggesting she had caused him to climax. She separately alleges that Shabazz told viewers she had slept with multiple people at the livestream residence.

Those allegations create a distinct defamation battle. Saint will have to prove, among other elements, that the challenged statements conveyed provably false assertions of fact rather than jokes, exaggeration or nonactionable opinion; that the defendants published them with the required degree of fault; and that she suffered legally cognizable harm. California law expressly recognizes certain false oral statements imputing a “want of chastity” as slander, which may become relevant depending on the precise words, context and audience involved.

The sexual-battery claim will be equally fact-intensive. California Civil Code section 1708.5 imposes civil liability when a person acts with the required intent and sexually offensive contact directly or indirectly results. The statute authorizes general, special and potentially punitive damages, as well as equitable relief. Saint must still prove that the alleged conduct satisfies those elements and that Broner is legally responsible.

The claim against Kick presents a different and potentially consequential issue for the livestreaming industry. Saint alleges negligence, but the platform may argue that federal law protects online services from being treated as the publisher or speaker of content created by third parties.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act generally provides that an interactive computer service cannot be treated as the publisher or speaker of information supplied by another content provider. Whether that protection applies here will likely depend on how Saint’s negligence theory is framed. A claim based solely on Kick’s decision to host, remove or moderate third-party content may face a substantial immunity defense. A claim based on Kick’s own alleged promises, conduct or independently assumed duties could require a different analysis.

At this early stage, the public record does not establish that Broner, Shabazz or Kick violated the law. No factfinder has tested Saint’s account, assessed the context of the livestreams or weighed any competing evidence.

Broner, whose boxing career includes championships across multiple weight divisions, had not filed a formal response to the complaint at the time of this report. Public reporting also indicated that a request for comment had not produced a response addressing the allegations.

The case could ultimately turn on digital evidence that is unusually immediate and difficult to explain away: archived livestreams, clips, direct messages, timestamps, witness accounts and platform records. Those materials may either corroborate Saint’s account, support the defense or reveal a more complicated sequence than either side’s initial narrative.

For now, the lawsuit places a former world champion and the rapidly expanding livestream economy under the same legal spotlight—one focused on consent, alleged humiliation and the consequences of broadcasting intimate claims to a mass audience.

Important Legal Note: A civil complaint contains allegations only. It is not proof or evidence that any defendant violated the law, nor does it establish that a crime was committed. No criminal charge is identified in this report. In this civil action, Saint bears the burden of proving her claims through admissible evidence, and every defendant is entitled to contest the allegations and present defenses.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Samuel López is a Senior Legal Analyst, investigative journalist and legal researcher with more than two decades of experience analyzing litigation, court filings and complex legal disputes.

Stay Ahead of the Story

👉 Follow us on X: https://x.com/RealUSAHerald