'Clavicular' Allegedly Injected Influencer with Drug on Livestream: Lawsuit

Popular looksmaxing influencer. Clavicular has now been hit with a brand. new lawsuit. He is being accused [music]. of having sex with an underage girl and. later on injecting her with an. unapproved drug. These bombshell new. claims we are going to break down. [music] We'll talk about the response. and we're going to do it all with Johnny. Depp's attorney, Ben Chew. Welcome to. Sidebar, presented [music] by Law &. Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. By the way, if you're watching this and.

you're into content creation or you're. putting things out on social media, you. might be wondering, "How do we get all. these clips out there so quickly?" Well, we use something called Opus Clip. This. [snorts] is an all-in-one AI editor that. makes it so easy to cut, create, and. upload videos across any platform. Through AI, Opus Clip generates B-roll, reframes footage, and it even cleans up. audio. It is so simple. You just visit. opus.pro/sidebar. You sign up, you upload, and in minutes. you have perfectly edited clips ready to. go. For TikTok, Shorts, Reels, Opus Clip. is your one-stop shop. And having a tool. like Opus Clip means our producers can. get you viral courtroom updates.

instantly. This is the most powerful. tool there is to share ideas and edit. like a pro. So, go to opus.pro/sidebar. to get a free week and then 50% off. Okay, so we got this brand new lawsuit. that dropped, and this one is against. popular influencer Clavicular, real name. Braden Peters. Actually, I think the. best way to describe who Clavicular is. and how much of a presence he has. And. this is a guy who I will tell you is. everywhere. He's everywhere. He's on.

social media. He's being interviewed. His rise has just happened so quickly, but I think the best way to describe who. he is is right from the lawsuit that was. filed against him. Now, yes, there are. some allegations and there's a narrative. put in here based on his description, but this is how the plaintiff in this. case describes him. Quote, "The. defendant, Peters, is widely known under. his social media name of Clavicular. Peters has over 1 million social media. followers as a result of his online. promotion of looksmaxing, which is.

focused on improving the physical. appearance of his online followers. According to Peters, looksmaxing allows. someone to ascend from maybe slightly. below average to above average through. looksmaxing, so they can achieve the. desired amount of wealth for a. supermodel to date them. He has claimed. that across society, we should be. advocating for looks. Peters has. repeatedly claimed and bragged online. about his use of illegal substances, including methamphetamine and ketamine, as well as the use of other injectable. medication that is available online.

Peters has repeatedly bragged about his. slaymaxing, which means sex with women. he meets through his fame. Peters has. admitted that he often creates online. content so he can be pursuing one-night. stands when he goes to parties and slay, which is a euphemism for sex. Peters. refers to his one-night stands as a pump. and dump. Now, by the way, included in. that description are apparently links to. videos reportedly of Clavicular. allegedly saying these things. But. according to Instagram, cuz we just did. our own research to give you an idea.

about how big this guy is, he reportedly has almost 600,000. followers on Instagram, over 145,000. followers on X, almost 930,000 followers. on TikTok, over 331,000 on the streaming. platform Kick. Now, interestingly, by. the way, it was only a few days ago that. he was reportedly kicked off of YouTube. for allegedly creating new channels. after already being terminated. previously. People magazine reported. that his previous channel was removed,

quote, "due to content that facilitated. access to websites that violates its. policies on illegal or regulated goods. or services." And Clavicular reportedly. admits to using drugs and famously. claims he smashed bones in his face with. a hammer. It's all part of improving. one's physical appearance. So, yeah, he's a controversial person, okay? And. by the way, talking controversial, he. recently reportedly was sent to the. hospital after a suspected overdose. Just gives you context about this before. we get into the lawsuit. Okay. So, I'm.

going to do an overview of the lawsuit. We're going to break it down and a. little bit later on I'm bringing on. Johnny Depp's attorney Ben Chew to talk. about it too. The strengths, the. weaknesses, the damages, we'll get into. it. Okay, so you have this lawsuit that. was filed by Alexandra Vassilevna. Mendoza. State Court, Miami, and it is against. solely Clavicular, real name Braden Eric. Peters. And right at the beginning. Mendoza claims that she was a minor. under Florida law at the time that some. of this allegedly happened, but says.

she's now 18 years old. Now, it's. interesting because the complaint starts. off by acknowledging Mendoza comes from. a troubled background. That she took to. social media at 16 to get sponsorships. to support herself financially. So, I. guess it goes into this idea, and which. we'll get into, how much she was relying. on this. Maybe how much she was turning. to Clavicular for help. Maybe why she. continued to stay in touch with him. I. think that's the narrative, but let's go. through it. And she apparently, according to this, was referred to on.

social media as Alora or Alora Ziva. So, you go to May 2025, and she alleges. Clavicular pays her a thousand dollars. to film videos. And again, allegedly 16. years old, claims that Clavicular wanted. her to be the female face for. looksmaxing. And that Clavicular. allegedly helps her create videos and. write scripts for her. But apparently, she hadn't met him yet. in person. And she claims that's when he. arranges for an Uber to bring her to. Cape Cod to Clavicular's parents' house.

And she claims not only were. Clavicular's mother and grandmother at. the home, but with the mother fully. aware, there were excessive amounts of. alcohol that were served. And she claims. Clavicular was under 21. Again, she. claims she was underage, okay? And she. claims that when she goes to the house, she goes to his room, he supplies her with vodka, she's inebriated, and he has sex with. her, and she wasn't able to consent. She alleges that when she wakes up, she. finds Clavicular again having sex with.

her without her consent. She claims she. sent off in an Uber, doesn't see him for. 6 months. Fast forward, November 2025. She's out in Miami, and she claims she. sees Clavicular. He allegedly. compliments her on how her looks have. improved through looksmaxing. He. allegedly invites her and her friends. over to his place for a streaming. session. Says she's ascending, you know, again, this slang term in the culture. for improving appearance, that he could. help her continue to gain a following. online. In the car, she claims that. Clavicular and his friends snorted this.

white powdery substance. She claims she. refused to participate in this. And according to the complaint, they. arrive at this place in Delray Beach. It's about an hour away, and I'm going. to read the rest of this verbatim, okay? Quote, "Upon arriving at their destination, Peters attempted to kiss and seduce. Mendoza. Mendoza rejected those. overtures. Peters continued to tell. Mendoza that he could help her with her. online presence, and took her into a. bedroom where he began live streaming on.

the kick.com platform. Sitting on the. desk was a vial of medication called. Aqualyx along with syringes. Peters told. Mendoza that he wanted to inject her. with this product to melt fat on her. cheeks as part of his promise to help. her with her online presence through. looksmaxing. During this session, Peters. stated or implied that he was acting. with medical authority, including by. referring to himself as a doctor, or. otherwise holding himself out as. qualified to perform the injection. The. FDA has warned that fat-dissolving.

injections are not FDA-approved and can. be harmful. Peters was not a physician. Peters was not licensed to practice. medicine in Florida. Peters was not. authorized to inject plaintiff with any. drug, medication, chemical, or. fat-dissolving substance. Peters never notified Mendoza that he. was not authorized or licensed to. perform injections. Plaintiff did not. provide legally valid consent for Peters. to inject her. Plaintiff's parent or. legal guardian did not consent to Peters.

injecting plaintiff. Peters nevertheless. prepared to inject plaintiff on camera. during a live stream session that was. streamed on the kick.com platform. Peters then injected plaintiff multiple. times in both cheeks with what he. represented to be Aqualyx. Peters did. not explain to plaintiff that Aqualyx. was not approved by the FDA for. injectable fat-dissolving use or that. fat-dissolving injections can be. harmful. At the time of the injection, Mendoza was a minor under Florida law. and could not receive any injections.

absent parental consent. At the time of. the injection, Peters knew that Mendoza. was a minor as he commented online, "She's still a minor. I'm 19, you. This entire episode was live streamed. and remains available to be replayed on. the Kick website and platform. Neither. Peters nor Kick received Mendoza's. permission to stream this session. The. video shows that Peters had problems. injecting Mendoza. In fact, Mendoza's. right cheek has perforated during the.

video. Peters stated or suggested that. methamphetamine had been added to the. injection mixture. After the first. injection, plaintiff appeared drugged on. camera. Plaintiff believes that she may. have been injected with methamphetamine. or another undisclosed substance. During. this entire session, Peters through the. Kick platform was receiving, processing, sharing, or financially benefiting from. paid viewer engagement including. subscriptions, donations, tips, platform.

currency, or other monetized activity. available through Kick's platform. Now, after this, she does claim that. they did see each other other times, claims that he would pay bouncers to let. her into bars, get drinks for her, and. she claims that she thought all this. time that he was trying to help her with. her career. And she makes the claim also. that these encounters were streamed on. Kick. Then, she alleges that in 2026, Clavicular embarks on this campaign to. discredit her, and she ultimately loses.

sponsorships and sponsorship. opportunities that she cites how she. signed a contract paying her $15,000 a. month with an online trading platform. So, this goes to the harm component. And. then it says, "Quote, upon information. and belief, Peter's campaign to. discredit plaintiff was undertaken in. anticipation of plaintiff asserting. claims arising from the live-streamed. injection and related misconduct." So, she's suing Clavicular under four causes. of action, four claims. And I want you. to listen carefully because I'm going to. talk about this with Ben Chew a little.

bit more about what is not included in. this. So, the first is battery. Allegedly intentionally injecting her, causing physical and psychological. injury. Count two, intentional. infliction of emotional distress. So, the alleged injection, the claim is, was. intentionally reckless and outrageous. You're talking about something that goes. past the bounds of what is acceptable, really egregious conduct. And she claims. it caused her severe emotional distress, trauma, humiliation, nightmares, panic,

fear, mental anguish. Count three, fraud. So, this is about Clavicular. allegedly not telling her he wasn't a. licensed healthcare provider and didn't. have the authority to inject her before. allegedly doing so. And you follow that. with the allegation that he didn't tell. her that she needed to have parental. consent. Allegedly didn't tell her that. this drug Aqualax was not FDA-approved. She argues if she knew all this, she. wouldn't have agreed to it. Count four, this is interesting, unauthorized publication of name and.

likeness. This is under Florida law. The. argument here is that Clavicular. allegedly uses her name, her image, her. likeness in connection with this live. stream, this replay content that he's. making money off of it for profit. She. didn't consent and she's entitled to. penalties and damages under Florida law. like royalties and exemplary damages. By. the way, also for the other count, she's. apparently seeking compensatory damages, you know, to restore her to whole and. that she reserves her right for punitive. damages, punishment damages, which by. the way can add up. Now, Mendoza's.

attorney released a statement saying, "Quote, our client will tell her story. through the legal process. In the. meantime, we do look forward to hearing. from Mr. Peters and his lawyers." Well, speaking of that, Clavicular's attorney, Steve Kramer, adamantly denies the. claims releasing a statement, "We are. aware of the complaint recently filed. against Mr. Peters." This is to Rolling. Stone. "These are allegations only and. remain unproven. Mr. Peters denies the. claims and disputes the characterization. of events. He will respond through the. appropriate legal channels and intends. to vigorously defend himself. We will. not comment further at this time.".

Okay, so now is the time where I bring. in one of my favorites. I'm so happy to. see him again. I'm bringing on. Ben Chew, who as you know, famously. represented Johnny Depp, high-profile. trial several years ago. We've had him. on the show. We've had him on the. program so many times since. My good. friend, good to see you. Thank you so. much for taking the time. I I I was telling you before like. when we talk about high-profile. lawsuits, this guy, Clavicular, is.

massive right now. He is massive. He is. getting a following and getting a. following so quickly that I'm very. curious to know how this fits into it. and what the repercussions could be. And. I want to break down this lawsuit. Just generally speaking, you had an. opportunity to review it. What do you. make of it? What do you make of the. allegations? >> Jesse, it's great to to be on again. I. find this this complaint quite. disturbing as I'm sure you did. but also puzzling in the sense that it.

appears to describe, almost in the. background section, an alleged sexual. assault, which allegedly preceded the. incident whereby he supposedly injected. her with some fat-reducing uh. drug. So, it really begs the question if. she believes that this was a sexual. assault, why that's not part of her case. in chief. >> Why do you think that wasn't included? And I actually did a double take, too, because when I was looking through.

the causes of action, it was all about. the injection. It wasn't it I mean, look, the allegation about this. sexual assault when she was a. a minor, I mean, that's the allegation. That provides context. It provides part. of the story, but it wasn't, as far as I. could see, and you looked at it, too, right? It didn't make up any one of the. individual causes of action. Would there. be a strategy there? >> Well, I think the strategy to the extent. that she. I don't think there's any time bar. issue. I don't think it's a statute of.

limitations issue. I think by making. those allegations, I think you're. certainly. uh you're certainly seeking to poison. the jury, the fact-finder, against this. against the defendant, Clavicular. >> So, you think that this is a situation. where that whole account could be thrown. out, that a jury or a judge wouldn't. hear it? >> I I believe there in in many. jurisdictions, I believe in California,

where they have a very rigorous process. for striking allegations that are not. germane to the causes of action, and. even in Virginia, where I frequently. practice, judges are constantly on the. alert for gratuitous. allegations, and they seek to strike. them. I'll give you one example uh on on. not as nearly as uh. controversial a case. It was a case.

involving. a property settlement agreement, and. there was an allegation in that. particular complaint about our client. having committed adultery in the course. of the marriage. And the judge was quite exercised about. that. This was a property settlement. dispute. It had nothing to do about the. parties' conduct during the the. marriage, and he he struck that. allegation, and he reprimanded uh the. counsel for for raising it in the. complaint. So, this is what really.

struck out to me. It seemed to me that. if she believes this this incident took. place, she should have alleged it and. alleged it as a tort. >> How do you prove harm? How do you prove. the damages? How do you prove what she. suffered or what she claims she suffered. as a result of the injection? >> That would That would be That will be. challenging. Um I think it it depends I. mean, to the extent that there has been. a disfigurement, you know, some kind of uh a a negative.

effect on her appearance. If she had any. uh skin conditions uh relating to this. I I believe she also alleges that there. may have been methamphetamine or some. other narcotic as part of this potion. that was injected into her. So, it may. have had some. deleterious mental effect on her as. well. It could have led to some. addiction. So, that will certainly I. would imagine she would have to have.

some medical records and probably a. medical expert to testify as to the. physical damages. The And And she's as. you know, Jesse, she's also. alleging emotional distress, intentional. infliction of emotional distress. >> And that's a broad term. That's a broad. cause of action, generally speaking. Um it's so broad that it can encompass a. lot of different alleged alleged. behavior, but it really has to be, you. know, egregious. It really has to go. beyond the bounds of decency. And if I.

were just to tell you the headline, you. know, uh popular looks maxing influencer. injects. uh. you know, injects another influencer in. the face with a drug without a license, without her knowing what this was all. about. I mean, that's the allegation. I'd say, "Okay, I think that probably. could be defined there, but it's not a. slam dunk, right?" Because. um. I'm looking at it, right? And they say. they say it has to cause severe. emotional distress, trauma, humiliation,

nightmares, panic, fear, mental anguish. It's it's a common cause of action, but. it's not always the easiest to prove, right? >> I completely agree with you, Jesse, and. I I don't think even on its face. this would not to use pun, but even on. its face, I don't I don't necessarily. think that this rises to the level of. stating a claim for intentional. infliction of emotional distress. As you. as you. note, the standard is incredibly.

incredibly high. for that. And I I I'm not sure that this. really meets it. I don't know whether. it's thrown out on emotion to dismiss, but it it might be. >> The counterargument would be and I I. haven't seen the full video of this. allegedly happening. I've seen what. appear to be screenshots online, but. it's so difficult to know what's real or. not. But they seem to say that this was. live streamed, right? That this was. recorded on the platform. If there's a. video of him allegedly injecting her,

and I I mean, we'll see what their. defense is. I have no nothing to say. right now that he is licensed to make. these injections. I mean, maybe they'll. I don't I don't think I haven't seen. anything to suggest it, but if he's not. licensed to do it and. and he uh injects her. and she her parents never consented to. this, isn't that the case for her? Isn't. that a win for her? >> It it it certainly could be. Um and to.

play devil's advocate for a moment, I. mean, she has a history with him. So, I imagine that she had some sense of. his not having any medical training. Uh. he was a fellow influencer. Al- albeit of a higher standard, a. higher higher status and and and higher. age. So, I think there's some issues of. fact. uh that will that a jury's going to have. to decide. >> If she was underage or. uh when this happened or she was, you.

know, um. I'm not entirely sure exactly what age. she claims she. she was when this alleged injection. happened. Doesn't it Wouldn't she need. her parents' consent though? Like, it. doesn't even matter what she believed or. >> Yeah, that's a that's a great point. Um. whether that goes to. the battery count or whether that. factors into the intentional infliction. of emotional distress, I don't know that the interplay between. those two things. I do think that there.

is, you know, perhaps not legally, but. in the mind of the jurors, yes, she was a minor. Yes, he was not a. minor, but he is only he's not that much. older than she is. So, this isn't a case of a a 40-year-old. and a 17-year-old. This is a case of of. somebody who is only, you know, two or three years older as I. understand it. And I I do think that. might affect how a jury sees this. >> Which goes to another point. I've seen. the this video. It was up on a an Insta-.

It was up on a X page, uh clavicular. updates. I don't know if it's genuine or not. It could potentially be. Let me play it. real quick. >> And what else? Not dating clav. Just did a little stream together where. he injected aqualix. It was really fun. Super nice. Sent me an Uber home right. after. >> If that's true, there's two ways to look at it, right? One person could look at. she said she had no problem with it and. now she's suing him. This hurts her.

credibility. The other way of looking at. it is in these types of cases and if you. have alleged victims who are younger, sometimes somebody will say how they. feel about something that allegedly. happened one way and then fully grasp it. another time or you know, they like cuz. it can be very complicated how how. complicated how somebody processes or. feels about something or alleged abuse. But the other way of looking at it is. too, if she thought that he was going to. help her career, she would say whatever.

she needed to help to make sure that he. helped her and when he didn't actually. help her, turned on her according to the. allegations, that's where she's like, okay, this is the real truth. You know, this is yeah, I said that on tape, but. that's not really how I felt. Talk to me. about what what we should be thinking. there. >> Yeah, I'm smiling not because it's a. funny situation, but because you and I. have talked about this in in many. different cases. This is a case that I. think we will have an expert who will. this explain to the jury. We'll probably. have experts on both sides. And her.

expert would explain why a victim might. behave in that manner and say I was fine. with it. and that could be, you know, consistent. with someone who is still a victim. He. would have another victim He would have. an an expert on the other side. to argue, no, that's not the way a real. victim would act. So I I think this will. this will be a case that not only. involves the credibility of the two. principals, the plaintiff and the.

defendant, but I I think you're going to. see expert testimony. >> And and particularly, I know I've seen. it already on social media, those who. have come to Clod kickers defense, she. continued to hang out with him, she was. with him if there was really a problem. It gets complicated. It also gets. complicated if you're dealing with. somebody that young. I'll I'll just say. that. In terms of damages, there's parts. of this where it seems not only the. damages for what she claims happened to. her, right? Compensatory damages, reserving her right for punitive. damages, punishment damages, but is it. also trying to get the money that he.

earned off of their appearances. together? And how would that work? >> Yeah, I I think so. I think that's going. to be a part of the case that that he. this was an unauthorized use. of her likeness. And I think that is a. pretty strong cause of action. It goes. back to your point about parental. consent, that she was not capable. of giving her consent. to her likeness being used, you know, on his show, as it were. And.

it And it also goes back to your earlier. point of why she might include the. sexual assault allegation. as as context or as background, because. that's something that she wants to get. in the jury's head. That if the jury really believes that he. sexually assaulted a minor. at the time, they may not care about the. niceties of the jury instructions that. you and I, you know, spend so much time.

with judges dealing with it. If they. think that he sexually assaulted her, they may just. want to punish him, irrespective of. everything else, which is why I think. a judge should should look long and hard. about striking those allegations. I. mean, it seems to me. that you either make the allegations. that there was a sexual assault. or you don't. But you don't mix it up in a case that. involves a completely different set of.

of incidents. >> Do you think that she's also uh her. attorneys are making a basis to go after. Kick as well? She the Kick is not named. as a defendant, but I'm wondering if. going after this platform is something. we're expecting, too. >> Yeah, that's a great point, Jesse, and. and you always look as a plaintiff's. counsel and most of my work is on the. plaintiff's side is you look for deep. pockets. And Clavicular is a deep pocket. in and of himself, but I would go after. the corporate entities as well because.

you're talking about another pocket and. an entity that's likely to have. insurance. which could fund a settlement. And. clearly what you're looking at here if. if you're really looking after your own. client, which I'm assuming that these. lawyers are. you don't want to put your client. through a trial. Because even if she prevails, this is. going to be further traumatizing her. And if you can get a good settlement.

short of putting her through having to. relive the alleged sexual assault, having to relive, you know, being. injected on on a you know, before you. know, millions of people or hundreds of. thousands of people, you want to do. that. >> This is not a contract dispute case, right? This is a case involving really. disturbing allegations, which makes me. wonder. do you think authorities are involved at. all? Do you think she went to law. enforcement? Um because this is blending.

in. These allegations are blending into. the criminal arena. >> Yeah, I I I clearly think, you know, the. sexual assault, that's that's a very. serious crime. And the battery. I mean, assuming that that this actually. happened and and there's evidence of it. that he injected her um without proper. authority or permission since she was a. minor and he had no medical background. I would think that also would be a very. serious crime that the Florida. authorities would be looking into.

Um when that happens Jesse as you know, if there's an active if there's an. indictment. it usually results in a stay of the. civil case because then clavicular in. this case as a criminal defendant has a. right against self-incrimination. And many courts look at it as unfair to. require the defendant to have to testify. in a civil case. while the criminal case is pending. So.

for whatever reason my guess is if this. case proceeds and he's testifying in the. civil deposition. there's there's no jeopardy at issue. But it's it's a great question because. you would think that this would be. there'd be a parallel criminal. investigation. >> Uh Ben, I really appreciate you coming. on and breaking this down with me. This. is a very complicated case. It has a. celebrity aspect to it. That makes it.

takes it into a different realm. You are. the best in the business. I really. really appreciate you taking the time to. talk about this with me. Thank you. >> Thank you so much Jesse. I really. appreciate it. >> And that's all we have for you right now. here on Sidebar everybody. Thank you so. much for joining us and as always please. subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you should get your. podcast. You can also check us out on. NBC's Peacock [music] as well. If you. want to follow me X Instagram my. NewsNation show Jesse Weber LIVE Monday. through Friday [music] 11:00 p.m. Eastern. See you next time everybody.

>> [music].