Revenge porn is the posting of explicit photos or videos of another person without his or her permission, commonly by exes or a significant other. Currently there are 27 states that criminalize revenge porn. These states include Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, D.C., Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

How to find Revenge Porn Laws?

The term “revenge porn” is not found in the laws of most states. Some states have assimilated the charge into other, more commonly known offenses, such as harassment (Alaska), invasion of privacy (Georgia), or disorderly conduct (California). Other states have an independent offense, like unlawful dissemination of an intimate image (Oregon, Nevada, and Pennsylvania), disclosure of private images (North Carolina), or distribution of intimate images (Utah). Revenge porn laws for each state that has specific legislation on it can be found here.

Sexuality is a common part of media, television, and movies. The advancement of technology, especially mobile and wearable technology, is creating new problems that the law hasn’t addressed yet. Much of the law is behind on addressing crimes of cyber bullying, sexting and revenge porn. However, lawmakers are starting to recognize and address these problems. In 2015, it was reported that there was a bill in Congress addressing revenge porn. It is likely that enactment of a federal law criminalizing revenge porn is on the horizon, but at the moment the decision is in the hands of the States. A summary of sexting and revenge porn policies, laws, and penalties by state can be reviewed here.

Even though almost half of U.S. states do not currently have specific revenge porn laws, there may be other means to charge an offender. If someone has posted explicit pictures or videos of you on the internet without your permission, you may be a victim of revenge porn. It is important to consult with an attorney to find out what can be done in your state. To find out more information or if your state has revenge porn laws please contact Revision Legal’s internet attorneys or call 855-473- 8474.

Image courtesy of Flickr user Chrishna.

The Current Federal Landscape

Congress has made multiple attempts to enact a federal revenge porn statute, and federal law has moved incrementally in this direction. The SHIELD Act (Stopping Harmful Image Exploitation and Limiting Distribution Act) was reintroduced in recent Congresses and would create a federal criminal prohibition on knowingly disclosing intimate visual depictions of identifiable individuals without their consent. Penalties under the proposed federal statute would include fines and imprisonment.

Even without a dedicated federal revenge porn statute, victims have several existing federal avenues. Cyberstalking under 18 U.S.C. § 2261A reaches a defendant who engages in a course of conduct using any facility of interstate commerce with intent to harass, intimidate, or place another person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury to themselves or a family member. Where the distribution of intimate images is part of a campaign of harassment against the victim — threats, repeated contact, publication to the victim’s employer — federal cyberstalking prosecution is viable.

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1030, provides another avenue when the intimate images were obtained through unauthorized access to the victim’s devices, cloud storage, email accounts, or social media accounts. Hacking into a former partner’s iCloud account to obtain intimate images is both a revenge porn offense and a CFAA violation. The CFAA provides for both criminal prosecution and a civil right of action, making it useful as a companion claim to state revenge porn claims.

How State Laws Have Evolved Since 2016

At the time this post was originally published, 27 states had adopted revenge porn statutes. The landscape has expanded significantly. As of 2024, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have enacted some form of law addressing nonconsensual intimate image distribution. The laws vary considerably in their scope, elements, and penalties — but the baseline consensus is now national: distributing intimate images of another person without their consent is illegal everywhere in the United States.

The more recent trend in state legislation is expanding coverage beyond the original revenge porn paradigm — the jilted ex-partner who posts images — to address “deepfakes” and AI-generated nonconsensual intimate images. Several states, including California, Georgia, Virginia, Texas, and New York, have enacted statutes addressing deepfake pornography — digitally created or manipulated images that depict a real, identifiable person in sexual situations they never participated in. These statutes recognize that the harm to the victim — reputational damage, psychological trauma, loss of employment — is identical whether the image is real or fabricated.

Key Elements of State Revenge Porn Statutes

Despite variation across states, most revenge porn statutes share common elements that determine whether a criminal charge can be sustained:

• Nature of the depiction. Most statutes cover images or videos depicting the victim in a state of nudity or engaged in sexual conduct. Some statutes extend to any image that depicts the victim’s intimate parts, whether or not the victim is otherwise clothed. The scope of “intimate parts” is defined by statute and varies by state.
• Reasonable expectation of privacy. The victim must have had a reasonable expectation that the image would remain private. This element is almost always satisfied where the image was taken in a private context with a partner, but may be contested where the victim previously shared the image with others.
• Nonconsensual distribution. The distribution must have been without the victim’s consent. Consent to the creation of an image does not constitute consent to its distribution.
• Culpable mental state. States differ on whether they require proof of intent to harm or harass the victim, or merely proof that the distribution was knowing and nonconsensual. Intent-based statutes are harder to prosecute when the defendant claims the images were shared without malicious intent.

Civil Remedies Beyond Criminal Law

Criminal prosecution can be slow, and many victims — particularly in less severe cases — find that local prosecutors decline to pursue charges. Civil litigation offers a faster, victim-controlled path to both injunctive relief and monetary compensation. Several states now have civil revenge porn statutes that explicitly create a private right of action, including California (Civil Code § 1708.85), Illinois, and New York. Where a civil statute is available, victims can sue for actual damages, including lost income and emotional distress, as well as injunctive relief ordering removal of the images.

Even without a dedicated civil statute, victims can bring claims for invasion of privacy (public disclosure of private facts or intrusion upon seclusion), intentional infliction of emotional distress, and copyright infringement (where the victim is the copyright owner of the image). Copyright claims are particularly powerful because they entitle the plaintiff to statutory damages — up to $150,000 per work if the infringement is willful — and attorney’s fees, making it economically viable to pursue even when the defendant has limited assets.

Section 230 and Platform Liability

One of the most frustrating aspects of revenge porn cases is the difficulty of holding hosting platforms liable. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, immunizes platforms from liability for user-generated content in most circumstances. This means that even a website specifically designed to host nonconsensual intimate images can generally avoid civil liability for hosting the content, as long as it did not create the content itself. DMCA takedown notices and direct platform reporting mechanisms remain the primary tools for removal.

However, platforms are not entirely shielded. Section 230 immunity does not extend to federal criminal law. The FOSTA-SESTA amendments to Section 230 created exceptions for platforms that facilitate sex trafficking. And some courts have found that platforms that actively encourage, solicit, or curate nonconsensual intimate images — rather than merely hosting user-submitted content passively — may lose Section 230 protection with respect to that conduct.

Talk to an Attorney

If you or someone you know is a victim of nonconsensual intimate image distribution, prompt action matters. The sooner images can be documented, reported, and removed, the less damage they cause. A combination of criminal complaint, civil litigation, DMCA takedowns, and platform reporting can be highly effective when coordinated properly. Contact Revision Legal’s internet attorneys through the form on this page or call 855-473-8474.