Partner
The newest example of revenge porn allegedly comes from a Sprint store located at 6601 N. Davis Highway, Pensacola, Florida. It is alleged that a Sprint employee, while serving a customer, downloaded sexually explicit content from her phone and posted it to multiple pornographic websites. It is our understanding this event is currently being investigated. Of course, this investigation is required to confirm these allegations. But, employees stealing photos from customers’ phones is nothing new: example 1, 2, and 3. Stolen cell photo photos are just one example of a growing trend in the world of revenge porn.
We help revenge porn victims. We are listed on resources such as endrevengeporn.com, we have been quoted by the Economist, and we and have urged states to adopt laws to combat this action.
The message we want to convey is that if you are a victim, you can take the power back. We became attorneys to help people solve problems. And there is nothing more enjoyable than turning a victim into the power broker.
We help clients file revenge porn lawsuits. Every lawsuit has a “cause of action.” This is the claim you are making against a defendant. For example, you sue Jack for “breach of contract” when Jack fails to fulfill a contractual obligation. But what causes of action are proper for revenge porn?
In an interesting twist, the causes of action are not newly enacted laws, but rather, laws that have been on the books for decades: invasion of privacy. Most states recognize four separate causes of action under the invasion of privacy umbrella: false light, intrusion upon seclusion, publication of private facts, and appropriation of name or likeness.
Depending on the facts, some or all of those privacy interests may force a strong cause of action for a revenge porn case. And these lawsuits can result in substantial monetary awards.
If you are a victim, or if you believe employees at a Sprint store in Pensacola, Florida stole your cell phone photos, contact our attorneys using the form on this page or call us at855-473-8474.
When a store employee — or anyone else — steals intimate images from a customer’s phone and distributes them online, multiple bodies of law are simultaneously implicated. Victims are not limited to a single cause of action. Understanding the full legal toolkit available is the first step toward obtaining relief and vindicating your rights.
As of today, 48 states and the District of Columbia have enacted criminal statutes specifically targeting non-consensual disclosure of intimate images. Michigan’s law (MCL § 750.145e) makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 93 days in jail and a $500 fine for a first offense, with enhanced felony penalties for subsequent violations or when the victim is a minor. Florida Statute § 784.049 similarly criminalizes the offense. Many state statutes also cover situations where the images were obtained through theft — making criminal prosecution of employees who steal from customers’ devices viable under both the non-consensual pornography statute and general theft and computer crime statutes.
The federal Stopping Harmful Image Exploitation and Limiting Distribution (SHIELD) Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1309, criminalizes the knowing disclosure of intimate images in interstate or foreign commerce without the depicted individual’s consent. Because images posted to websites are distributed across the internet — inherently affecting interstate commerce — federal jurisdiction typically attaches. Federal prosecution brings significantly enhanced penalties compared to most state misdemeanor statutes, and the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) accepts reports of these offenses.
Beyond criminal prosecution, victims have several civil remedies available. The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D recognizes a claim for publication of private facts where a defendant publicly discloses private facts that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and are not of legitimate public concern. Intimate images taken without consent and posted publicly satisfy all three elements. Section 652B provides an intrusion upon seclusion claim where a defendant intentionally intrudes upon the solitude or seclusion of another in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person — accessing a person’s phone and downloading private files constitutes exactly such an intrusion. Courts have also awarded substantial damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress in non-consensual pornography cases where the defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous. When the perpetrator is an employee, the employer faces direct liability through respondeat superior or negligent hiring and supervision theories — a critical avenue when the individual defendant may be judgment-proof.
A civil lawsuit addresses monetary damages but not necessarily the removal of images already posted online. Additional steps must be pursued in parallel. Most platforms have a process to report and remove non-consensual intimate images under their terms of service. DMCA takedown notices (17 U.S.C. § 512(c)) can compel hosting providers to remove infringing content if the victim holds copyright in the image — which, under 17 U.S.C. § 102, generally belongs to the person depicted when they took the photo themselves. For images that exist on platforms that are unresponsive to informal requests, attorneys experienced in this area can seek emergency injunctive relief from a court ordering removal.
If you are a victim of stolen device images or non-consensual pornography, Revision Legal’s attorneys can help you pursue every available legal remedy. Contact us through the form on this page or call 855-473-8474.
While the law provides powerful remedies after an incident, prevention is always preferable to litigation. Consumers who bring their phones to retail stores for service or upgrade should take several precautions to protect their private content. Before handing your device to any technician, back up your photos and sensitive content to a personal cloud account or computer, then delete that content from the device if possible. Enable device encryption and use a strong passcode rather than biometric authentication, since biometrics can be compelled in some circumstances and a passcode cannot. After any service visit, review your photo library and recently installed apps for unauthorized additions or deletions. If you use a cloud photo service that syncs automatically, monitor your account for unexpected access from unfamiliar IP addresses or devices.
Businesses that provide device repair or upgrade services also have legal obligations worth understanding. Employees who access customer content without authorization may expose the employer to liability under the federal Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701), which prohibits unauthorized access to stored electronic communications and private content. Civil penalties and criminal prosecution are both available under the SCA, giving businesses powerful tools to pursue employees who breach customer trust — and giving customers additional federal law claims beyond the state invasion of privacy theories already discussed.
California’s revised CCPA regulations offer some compliance clarity but leave significant questions unanswered. Here’s what businesses need to act on now.
Read more about Revised CCPA Regulations: Guidance and Uncertainty
Revenge porn involves the non-consensual distribution of intimate images to harm a victim. Revision Legal’s internet attorneys explain the legal definition and remedies for revenge porn victims.
Read more about What is Revenge Porn? Legal Definition and Remedies
Montana’s data breach notification law requires businesses to notify residents when their personal information is compromised. Here’s what the law requires and who must comply.
Read more about Montana Data Breach Notification Law Explained