Revenge porn—the non-consensual distribution of intimate images—is one of the most devastating forms of online harassment. A single post can damage careers, destroy relationships, and inflict profound psychological harm. If you are a victim of revenge porn, legal remedies exist that can help you remove the content, identify and pursue the person responsible, and hold them accountable under both civil and criminal law. Revision Legal’s Internet attorneys have handled revenge porn cases and can help you protect yourself.
Revenge porn—more precisely termed non-consensual pornography—refers to the distribution of sexually explicit images or videos of a person without their consent. It is most commonly perpetrated by former romantic partners, though it can also be carried out by hackers, acquaintances, or strangers who obtain intimate content through theft, deception, or unauthorized access to devices or cloud storage.
Websites like submityourex.com and ugotposted.com built their business models around hosting this content, often charging victims a fee to have their images removed—an arrangement that constitutes extortion in most jurisdictions. Although many of these early sites have shut down under legal pressure, non-consensual pornography continues to spread through social media platforms, anonymous image boards, private messaging applications, and countless websites that exist beyond the reach of platform moderation.
As of today, the vast majority of U.S. states have enacted specific criminal statutes targeting non-consensual pornography. These laws vary in their definitions, penalties, and required elements, but most share a common structure: criminalizing the intentional disclosure of sexually explicit images of an identifiable person without consent and with intent to harm, harass, or embarrass.
In addition to state laws, the federal SHIELD Act (Stopping Harmful Image Exploitation and Limiting Distribution Act) created federal criminal liability for the non-consensual disclosure of intimate visual depictions. Federal prosecution is particularly relevant when the perpetrator is in a different state from the victim, when the conduct occurs across state lines, or when the images are hosted on platforms subject to federal jurisdiction.
Beyond criminal prosecution, victims have several civil causes of action available to them:
If you took the intimate photographs or videos yourself—using your own phone or camera—you own the copyright. Under 17 U.S.C. § 106, only the copyright holder has the right to reproduce, distribute, or publicly display the work. Posting your intimate images without your authorization is copyright infringement. This theory provides a powerful tool because it (1) allows you to send DMCA takedown notices requiring platforms to remove the content quickly, and (2) creates a copyright infringement claim against the person who posted the images with exposure to statutory damages between $750 and $30,000 per image, or up to $150,000 for willful infringement.
Several common law and statutory invasion of privacy theories apply to revenge porn scenarios. The intrusion upon seclusion tort covers unauthorized access to private information. Public disclosure of private facts covers the posting of private information—including intimate images—that a reasonable person would find highly offensive. Many states have also codified these common law torts in digital privacy statutes that provide additional remedies.
The intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress by extreme and outrageous conduct is actionable under the common law of most states. Posting intimate images of a former partner with the intent to harm them is exactly the kind of conduct courts have found to satisfy this element.
When websites or individuals demand payment to remove intimate images—as many revenge porn sites did—that conduct constitutes extortion under both state and federal law. Victims who have been extorted can report this conduct to law enforcement and pursue civil claims for damages arising from the extortionate demands.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides broad immunity to online platforms for content posted by third-party users. This immunity has historically made it difficult to hold websites liable for hosting revenge porn. However, FOSTA-SESTA, enacted in 2018, carved out an exception to Section 230 immunity for platforms that facilitate sex trafficking. Some advocates have argued for a similar carve-out for non-consensual pornography, and some states have enacted statutes that impose direct liability on platforms that refuse to remove content upon notice.
Preserve all evidence immediately: screenshots of the posts, URLs, usernames, and any communications from the person who posted the content. Do not ask the perpetrator to remove the content—doing so may alert them to take additional steps and will not produce reliable results. Contact law enforcement and document any criminal conduct. File DMCA takedown notices with the hosting platforms if you own the copyright. Then contact an Internet attorney who can assess your full range of legal remedies and help you move quickly to minimize further harm.
Revision Legal’s Internet attorneys handle revenge porn cases with sensitivity, urgency, and legal precision. Contact us today for a confidential consultation.
Facebook agreed to pay $550 million to settle a class action lawsuit under Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act. Here’s what the case means for biometric data law.
Read more about Facebook’s $550M Illinois Biometric Settlement
Seizing an infringer’s domain name is one of the most effective ways to stop IP theft online. Here’s how courts order domain transfers and what rights holders need to show.
Read more about Seizing an Infringer’s Domain to Stop Infringement
Recent court decisions on what counts as an ‘autodialer’ under the TCPA suggest restrictions may be loosening. Here’s what businesses using automated texts need to know.
Read more about TCPA Autodialer Decisions: Are Restrictions Easing?