FOLLOW US

INSIDE THIS REPORT

• Aleksandra Vasilevna Mendoza is pushing Kick to hand over Clavicular's streaming contract through the discovery process.
• Mendoza's lawsuit accuses the influencer, born Braden Eric Peters, of battery, fraud, and injecting her with an unapproved drug while she was still a minor.
• Peters, through attorney Steve Kramer, calls the allegations "unproven" and says he intends to fight the case in court.

By Samuel López | USA Herald

Money talks, and Aleksandra Vasilevna Mendoza wants Kick to start talking.

According to court filings I reviewed, the 18-year-old influencer suing "looksmaxxing" streamer Clavicular for sexual battery is now trying to force the platform's hand — literally. Mendoza's legal team is using the discovery process to compel Kick to turn over Peters' streaming contract, a document that could reveal exactly how much money the controversial creator has pulled in since he became one of the platform's most talked-about — and most scrutinized — personalities.

It's a calculated move. In cases like this, financial discovery isn't just about assigning a dollar figure to damages. It's about building a picture of motive, leverage, and what, exactly, a defendant stood to lose by keeping a young creator close and compliant.

Mendoza claims she is still waiting on Kick to produce the paperwork. That delay, whether it's routine platform bureaucracy or something else, is now becoming part of the story itself.

The Allegations at the Center of the Case

Mendoza's complaint alleges that Peters, now 20 and known online as Clavicular, took advantage of her when she was 16 years old, plying her with alcohol before having sex with her without her consent — including, she claims, a second encounter the following morning while she was still incapacitated. The suit further alleges Peters injected her face with Aqualyx, a fat-dissolving compound not approved by the FDA, live on his Kick stream, without a medical license and without properly informing her of what the substance was.

Mendoza says the livestreamed injection left lasting damage, both physical and psychological, and that Peters continued to profit from the footage — monetized replays included — long after the alleged incident.

She's also pushing back against any suggestion this is a case of "he said, she said." In her filings, Mendoza claims she has witnesses who can corroborate her account, and her attorneys have been blunt about how they view the power dynamic: Peters, they argue, is an adult with more than a million followers who "targeted a vulnerable minor from a troubled background."

Clavicular's Side of the Story

Peters' attorney, Steve Kramer, has been consistent in his response since the suit was first filed. In a statement, Kramer said the claims against his client "are allegations only and remain unproven," adding that Peters "denies the claims and disputes the characterization of events" and "will respond through the appropriate legal channels" while intending to "vigorously defend himself."

Notably, Kramer's camp hasn't offered a detailed, point-by-point rebuttal of Mendoza's specific claims — sticking instead to the standard playbook of denial-without-detail that defense attorneys often lean on early in high-profile civil litigation. Whether that changes once Kick's records, and possibly Peters' own financial history, come into play remains to be seen.

Why the Kick Contract Matters

For those wondering why a streaming contract would even be relevant in a battery and fraud case, the answer is straightforward: money shapes narrative. If Mendoza's team can show that Peters' income scaled directly alongside content involving her — including, potentially, the very livestream where the disputed injection took place — it strengthens claims that he had a financial incentive tied to her participation, consent or not.

It could also matter for damages. Mendoza is suing for battery, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and unauthorized use of her name and likeness. A clearer picture of what Clavicular's brand — and by extension, content featuring Mendoza — has actually generated for him financially could factor heavily into any eventual settlement or judgment.

Kick has not publicly commented on the discovery request.

What Comes Next

Civil discovery fights like this one can drag on for months before a judge forces a party's hand, and platforms are often reluctant to hand over contract terms voluntarily, citing confidentiality concerns. But if Mendoza's attorneys get what they're asking for, it could give the public — and a future jury — its clearest look yet at just how lucrative Clavicular's rise on Kick has actually been.

For now, both sides are digging in. Peters says he'll fight the claims. Mendoza says she has the receipts, and she wants his.

USA Herald will continue following this case as it develops.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Samuel López is a reporter for USA HERALD covering U.S. news and crime, with a focus on breaking developments, law enforcement, public safety and major stories shaping communities across the country — subscribe to the USA Herald newsletter.