Last Friday, Google published a blog post outlining a new policy to directly combat one of the web’s darkest corners: revenge porn. Revenge porn—and its even more sinister counterpart, “sexploitation”—have affected a large swath of people, mainly women. Revenge porn is the term used to describe the act of posting scandalous, sexually explicit pictures or videos of someone to the web without their consent. Generally, the perpetrator is an ex-partner, with the explicit content saved somewhere on their hard drive or cell phone, seeking “revenge.” Sexploitation is the term used to describe blackmailing the victim to remove the content. Both acts are highly abusive and can cause severe emotion distress and reputational damage.

Google’s new policy, while unable to actually remove revenge porn from the web, will make it significantly harder for it to be found. While it has yet to give a date, Google will soon release a form that a victim of revenge porn can submit to the site to remove the explicit content from Google image searches. Google wrote: “We know this won’t solve the problem of revenge porn—we aren’t able, of course, to remove these images from the websites themselves—but we hope that honoring people’s requests to remove such imagery from our search results can help.”

Revenge porn and sexploitation touch on a lot of problems pervasive online. Privacy, in the Internet Age, is much harder to come by, and defamation is even more easily accomplished. The Internet is the new battleground for the struggle between First Amendment rights and the right to privacy. In Florida, for example, many websites have popped up that publish mug shots and charge individuals to remove them, while the legislature has tried and failed to put an end to the practice. On the other end of the spectrum, the European Union recently ruled that there is a “right to be forgotten,” which forced Google, among others, to drastically alter their takedown policies.

Some states have passed laws criminalizing revenge porn, and civil lawsuits based on invasion of privacy and/or intentional infliction of emotions distress claims have been litigated. But such lawsuits are watered down by the federal Communications Decency Act, specifically section 230, which shields Online Service Providers (OSPs) and third-parties from most liability. Therefore, it is up to OSPs to act on their own initiative to combat cybercrimes like revenge porn.
While Google’s new domestic policy is a step in the right direction, as they admit, it will not accomplish completely purging the web of revenge porn. But just as the DMCA and ACPA push for restrictions in other online areas, every little bit helps to protect individual privacy in an interconnected world.

State Criminal Laws Against Non-Consensual Intimate Images

Since 2015, the legal landscape governing non-consensual intimate image disclosure has shifted dramatically. As of 2024, more than 48 states have enacted criminal statutes criminalizing revenge porn, often called non-consensual pornography or NCIP. These laws typically require prosecution to prove: (1) the defendant knowingly disclosed an intimate image; (2) the depicted person had a reasonable expectation that the image would remain private; and (3) the disclosure was made without consent and with intent to harass, harm, or profit. Penalties range from misdemeanor convictions to felony charges in states like Michigan, where second-time offenders face up to five years in prison under MCL Section 750.145e.

Civil Causes of Action for Victims

Beyond criminal exposure, victims of revenge porn have actionable civil claims in most jurisdictions. The most frequently litigated theories include invasion of privacy through public disclosure of private facts, intentional infliction of emotional distress, copyright infringement where the victim is the photographer, and state statutory claims. In California, Civil Code Section 1708.85 provides a standalone cause of action with actual and punitive damages plus attorney fees. New York’s Civil Rights Law Section 52-b creates a private right of action with damages of $1,000 per violation or actual damages, whichever is greater.

The copyright angle deserves particular attention. If the victim took the photograph themselves, they hold copyright in that image. Because copyright vests automatically at creation under 17 U.S.C. Section 302, unauthorized distribution by a former partner constitutes direct copyright infringement. Victims who register promptly can seek statutory damages up to $30,000 per image — or $150,000 for willful infringement — under 17 U.S.C. Section 504(c). This pathway allows victims to pursue significant monetary recovery even when emotional distress damages are difficult to quantify.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act: The Platform Shield

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 230, remains the central obstacle to holding platforms directly liable for revenge porn posted by users. Section 230(c)(1) provides that no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of information provided by another information content provider. Courts have interpreted this provision broadly to shield platforms from liability for hosting user-submitted content even when the platform was notified of the harmful nature of that content. This is precisely why voluntary platform policies — like Google’s removal form and Meta’s image-matching tools — remain critical practical remedies alongside legal action.

Federal Law: The SHIELD Act

Congress passed the Stopping Harmful Image Exploitation and Limiting Distribution (SHIELD) Act as part of the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization in 2022. The law creates a federal criminal prohibition on the knowing disclosure of intimate visual depictions without consent where disclosure was made with reckless disregard for the victim’s lack of consent and with the intent to harm. Federal prosecution provides a tool that crosses state lines — critical in cases where the perpetrator and victim are in different states or where images are hosted on servers outside any single state’s jurisdiction.

Practical Steps for Victims

If you are a victim of revenge porn or non-consensual intimate image distribution, take the following steps immediately. First, document everything by taking screenshots showing the URL, the content, and timestamps before submitting any removal requests — platforms often act quickly and evidence disappears. Second, submit platform removal requests to Google, Microsoft Bing, Meta, TikTok, and any hosting provider simultaneously. Third, file a police report even in states with weaker criminal statutes, as this creates an official record that supports civil litigation. Fourth, consult an attorney about copyright registration if you own copyright in the images; registering immediately creates a pathway to statutory damages and DMCA takedown authority. Fifth, contact the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative for additional support resources and guidance.

Contact Revision Legal’s Internet Attorneys

Revenge porn and non-consensual intimate image cases require rapid, coordinated legal action across multiple fronts — platform removals, criminal reporting, and civil litigation. Revision Legal’s internet attorneys have experience with DMCA enforcement, privacy tort claims, and copyright infringement matters that frequently intersect in these cases. Contact us to discuss your options and begin building a strategy to protect your reputation and hold perpetrators accountable.