YouTubers can't dodge grooming and sex trafficking claims

SEATTLE (CN) — A YouTuber must face claims that he groomed and assaulted two underage fans, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday.

James Jackson, known online by the name “Onision,” and his spouse Lucas Jackson, known online as “Laineybot” or “Kai,” did not convince a federal judge to dismiss claims brought by former fans who accused the couple of violating sex trafficking and minor abuse laws by enticing them across state lines and coercing them into commercial sex acts.

Regina Alonso and a plaintiff identified under the pseudonym Sarah sued the YouTubers in 2023, accusing the two of using their YouTube page to solicit explicit photos from them while they were underage and sexually assaulting Sarah while she was a minor.

“The court concludes that the [consolidated third amended complaint] alleges sufficient factual matter for each claim to survive a motion to dismiss,” wrote U.S. District Judge John Chun, a Joe Biden appointee.

Onision started his YouTube channel in 2006. The plaintiffs claim the channel “targeted underage girls and provided content that appealed to that age group, such as comments on body image, appearance, self-identity, suicide ideology and similar topics.”

The plaintiffs originally named Google and YouTube as defendants, but a federal judge in California dismissed the companies from the suit last year.

Alonso said she started interacting with Laineybot in 2012, the year Laineybot married Onision. According to Alonso, Laineybot solicited explicit images from her when she was 14 and encouraged her to visit them in Washington state.

Plaintiff Sarah said she joined an online fan group for the YouTubers when she was 14 and flew to Washington multiple times after turning 16 to visit the YouTubers. During those trips, she said the YouTubers would sexually touch her.

The plaintiffs brought claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, an act that penalizes anyone who recruits minors to engage in a “commercial sex act.”

The YouTubers, who are representing themselves, argued that the plaintiffs failed to accuse them of committing a commercial sex act or trafficking venture. However, the court noted that a commercial sex act can include sexual content exchanged for benefits beyond cash.

Chun also noted that both plaintiffs sufficiently accused the YouTubers of soliciting an exchange of sexual material for something of value. In Alonso’s case, she says the YouTubers requested and received nude photographs in exchange for paying for her travel expenses and for the position as volunteer moderator of their fan forum.

In Sarah’s case, she says she received free trips where she was “touched in a sexual manner” and appeared in several monetized YouTube videos.

Both plaintiffs’ accusations were sufficient to sustain the claims, the judge said.

Chun also allowed Sarah to proceed with her claims brought under Masha’s Law, which allows civil remedies for those harmed as minors. Sarah accused the YouTubers of persuading her to travel to Washington to engage in a commercial sex act.

Sarah can also continue with her defamation claim. She accused Onision of publishing a series of videos in 2022 claiming that she was “sexually extorting” him, that she had raped him and that she is a known criminal and felon.

“These statements impute a criminal offense of moral turpitude onto plaintiff Sarah, which could constitute defamation per se if plaintiff can also prove that the statements were made,” Chun said.

The YouTubers argued that the claimed defamatory statements were time-barred, but Chun noted that the most recent defamatory statement occurred in 2025 and well within the two-year limitations period.

In their attempt to dismiss the claim, the YouTubers argued that they had evidence to support the statements. But Chun noted that, even assuming it is evidence, it cannot be considered at this stage.

In an emailed statement, Onision addressed Chun’s conclusions on that point.

“As part of the laws associated with motions to dismiss, the judge was not allowed to look at the over 200 exhibits proving both Sarah & Regina are frauds who are actively abusing the legal system to further harass my spouse, who was physically raped by Sarah. We have lost over $40,000 due to their suit so far, and continue to lose more,” Onision said in the email.“I encourage everyone to review the exhibits, read the police reports & compare them to the complaint. It is not a question of whether or not Sarah & Regina lied, it is a question of how many times they lied. This is a disgrace to all victims of all crimes who can’t be taken seriously right away due to frauds like Regina & Sarah constantly using the legal system as a means to compensate for their own feelings of being rejected & cast out for their past unlawful behaviors.”

The YouTubers also asked the court to sanction the plaintiffs, arguing that their counsel made filings “without any factual foundation that could survive even minimal pre-filing inquiry” and that the accusations in the complaint are sometimes contradictory.

This argument did not convince Chun sanctions were warranted.

“The allegations in the [consolidated third amended complaint] are colorable and do not come close to the standard necessary to invoke Rule 11 sanctions,” Chun said.

The plaintiffs did not immediately respond to a request for comment.