Updated October 2026: We replaced our outdated description of the SHIELD Act with the federal civil claim for victims under 15 U.S.C. § 6851 (2022) and the TAKE IT DOWN Act (2025), which made publishing nonconsensual intimate images, including AI-generated fakes, a federal crime and requires platforms to remove them within 48 hours of a valid request, and we updated the state-law discussion.
As it should be, “revenge porn” (or more accurately, nonconsensual pornography) is illegal in nearly every state and the District of Columbia, and since 2025 it is also a federal crime. Many states, and now federal law, also allow victims to sue to recover money damages (although recovering a money judgment can never truly make the victims whole or compensate for the emotional trauma that this crime causes). Nonconsensual pornography occurs when sexually explicit photos or video are published/distributed without consent. At one time, the typical case involved a spiteful ex-romantic partner posting graphic images online as “pay-back.” But, now, nonconsensual pornography cases have many possible origins including images and video taken with hidden cameras, images/video stolen or hacked from computers, phones and other devices, and AI-generated “deepfake” images that falsely depict a real person. Even worse, nonconsensual pornography includes images and video taken by rapists engaged in sexual assaults.
There are many criminal and civil laws that apply. For example, Michigan has an anti-nonconsensual pornography statute that prohibits dissemination of “sexually explicit visual material” where the dissemination is:
- Made intentionally
- Without the victim’s consent
- With the intent to “threaten, coerce, or intimidate” the victim and
- When the victim is over eighteen, the victim is identifiable, the images were obtained “under circumstances in which a reasonable person would know or understand that the sexually explicit visual material was to remain private”
In Michigan, perpetrators can be punished with jail time and a $500 fine and repeat offenders can be imprisoned for up to a year and be required to pay $1,000 in fines.
Michigan enacted its anti-nonconsensual pornography law in 2016 (MCL 750.145e and 750.145f), and its criminal punishments are relatively mild compared to other states. By contrast, in Illinois, nonconsensual pornography is classed with other serious sex crimes as a Class 4 felony, carrying a potential three-year prison sentence and a $25,000 fine. Illinois also makes it easier for prosecutors to prove the crime by eliminating any need to prove an intent to “threaten, coerce, or intimidate” the victim.
Note that nonconsensual pornography is a crime and punishable even if the images/video were taken with consent or taken by the victim. The crime is publishing or disseminating the images/video without consent. Some anti-nonconsensual pornography statutes explicitly recognize this. For example, the Arkansas criminal statute explicitly states that consent to the creation of the images is “not a defense to prosecution.” See Ark. Code Ann. 5-26-314(b). Federal law takes the same approach, as discussed below.
According to a 2019 survey published by Business Insider, 46 states and the District of Columbia had enacted specific anti-nonconsensual pornography criminal statutes at that time. Mississippi joined the list in 2021 (see media report here), and the Wyoming legislature took up its own bill that year (see here). Today, nearly every state has a law addressing nonconsensual pornography, and a growing number of states have amended their laws to cover AI-generated or digitally altered images.
With respect to civil causes of action, victims of nonconsensual pornography have a private right of action under some state statutes (like the Illinois version) and under federal law, and can often also sue for damages for claims like intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, false light/unauthorized use of likeness and more.
Contact Revision Legal
For more information or if you have been the victim of nonconsensual pornography, contact Revision Legal at 231-714-0100.
Federal Law: A Civil Claim and the TAKE IT DOWN Act
Beyond state criminal statutes, victims of nonconsensual pornography now have two federal avenues for relief. An earlier version of this post described the SHIELD Act (Stopping Harmful Image Exploitation and Limiting Distribution Act) as federal criminal law. That bill was proposed in Congress but did not become law in that form. The federal protections that Congress actually enacted are described below.
The Federal Civil Cause of Action (2022)
The Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022 created a federal civil cause of action, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 6851, for a person whose intimate images are disclosed without consent in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce. A victim can sue the person who disclosed the images if that person knew, or recklessly disregarded, that the victim did not consent. Consenting to the creation of an image, or sharing it with the defendant, is not consent to its further distribution. A court may award actual damages or liquidated damages of $150,000, plus attorney fees and costs, and may order the defendant to stop displaying or disclosing the images. Courts may also allow a victim to proceed under a pseudonym.
The TAKE IT DOWN Act (2025)
On May 19, 2025, the TAKE IT DOWN Act was signed into law. It makes it a federal crime to knowingly publish nonconsensual intimate images of an identifiable person, including AI-generated “digital forgeries,” and to threaten to do so. Penalties include federal prison time, with higher maximum sentences when the victim is a minor. The Act also requires covered online platforms to provide a process for victims to request removal and to take the content down within 48 hours of a valid request, along with reasonable efforts to remove known identical copies. Platforms were required to comply by May 19, 2026, and the Federal Trade Commission enforces those requirements.
Civil Causes of Action and Damages
Criminal prosecution punishes the perpetrator but does not compensate the victim. Civil litigation does. Most victims pursue multiple civil theories simultaneously:
- Federal civil claim under 15 U.S.C. § 6851: allows recovery of actual damages or $150,000 in liquidated damages, plus attorney fees, costs, and injunctive relief, against a person who knowingly or recklessly disclosed intimate images without consent
- Invasion of privacy / public disclosure of private facts: courts consistently apply this tort to intimate images shared without consent; the disclosure must be highly offensive to a reasonable person and of no legitimate public concern
- Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED): requires conduct so outrageous that it exceeds the bounds of what civilized society will tolerate; nonconsensual pornography squarely meets this standard in most jurisdictions
- Unauthorized use of likeness: available in many states, this tort addresses the use of a person’s image without permission and can support both damages and injunctive relief
- Statutory civil claims: states like Illinois and California have civil provisions built directly into their nonconsensual pornography statutes, allowing victims to recover actual damages, statutory damages, and attorney fees
Recoverable damages in civil actions can include: emotional distress damages, lost wages and lost earning capacity, the cost of removing images from the internet, reputational harm, and punitive damages where state statutes permit.
Taking Down Nonconsensual Images
Victims should pursue image removal in parallel with any criminal or civil action. Most major platforms (including Google, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, and X, formerly Twitter) have specific reporting mechanisms for nonconsensual intimate imagery. Under the TAKE IT DOWN Act, covered platforms must now offer a removal process and take down nonconsensual intimate images, including AI-generated fakes, within 48 hours of a valid request. Where platforms are unresponsive, victims can also seek relief under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). If the victim originally held copyright in the images, which is often the case with self-taken photos, a DMCA takedown notice sent to the hosting platform can compel removal under the safe harbor provisions of 17 U.S.C. § 512.
Identifying Anonymous Perpetrators
Many perpetrators post nonconsensual images anonymously or under pseudonyms. A “John Doe” lawsuit is filed against the unknown defendant, and then a subpoena is issued to the platform or internet service provider demanding account information and IP address logs. Courts routinely grant these subpoenas in nonconsensual pornography cases. If you or someone you know has been victimized, act quickly: evidence disappears and statutes of limitations run. Contact the experienced internet attorneys at Revision Legal at 231-714-0100 for an immediate consultation.
