Chicago, Illinois, United States
Session Participant Alleges Being Scammed Out of Over $1,000 by Stella Rosa After Paying for a No-Show Wrestling Session.
Last Updated: May 05, 2025
The text you provided describes a situation that contains clear allegations of potential fraudulent activity, specifically deception for financial gain. Here's an explanation of how the text outlines that:
Multiple commenters in the thread describe contact with a service provider (identified as "Stella Rosa") involving arrangements for paid in-person sessions. Specifically, one user claims they paid a total of $1009 (including a $100 deposit, travel expenses, and the cost of wardrobe) but the session never occurred because the provider “never showed up.”
Example Quote:
“she never showed up... after telling me everything and setting everything up she didn't showed up to the session... I spend more than I should trying to get her and it never happened...”
This suggests that the user sent money in advance with the expectation of receiving a service that was not delivered, constituting deceptive business behavior.
The complainant highlights repeated attempts to arrange the session, ultimately resulting in a missed meeting and no refund. They also mention receiving a message afterward assuring the session would happen, but still receiving no service or refund long after payment.
“A month and she said she was gonna pay and it seems its not gonna happen... you pay an amount expecting something and you get nothing back from it... sometimes you just can't trust at all.”
This portrays a pattern consistent with fraud, where a provider takes a payment, offers excuses or promises, and fails to deliver.
Sessiongirls.com, the platform in question, is referenced as having taken action by moving "Stella Rosa" to a “scammer section” after receiving a complaint and evidence from the user.
“So at this time, stella rosa is on scammer section after all this situation... after all this she is officially out of sessiongirls.”
Placement on a scammer list implies that the platform recognized fraudulent behavior and responded by removing or blacklisting the alleged perpetrator.
The complainant reports submitting proof of transactions and records to the platform, suggesting that the allegations are supported by documentation.
“OHH I got a lot of evidence... and all transactions in photos... sessiongirls.com have them now...”
If these transactions substantiate payment without corresponding services delivered, it would reinforce the allegation of fraud: charging for services with no intent to fulfill them.
Other users express hesitation, empathy, and caution, hinting that this may not be an isolated issue. The repetition of warnings like “do not trust her” or calls to “report her” reinforce the perception of fraudulent conduct.
The text explicitly describes what appears to be:
- An exchange of money for services that were not delivered
- A failure of the provider to attend the scheduled service or issue a refund
- Follow-up excuses and delays rather than restitution
- Official recognition by the service platform, temporarily or otherwise, of fraudulent behavior
All of this constitutes alleged fraudulent activity under definitions involving deception for financial gain or services not rendered after payment.