Two federal laws apply. One gives you the civil claim. The other makes the posting a crime and forces platforms to take it down.
This page quotes both as they read in the United States Code, then says what the text leaves open. Federal claims are often the strongest part of a case, and they come with choices about where and how to file that a free, confidential case review is built to sort out. Please do NOT send us the images; we do not need them to have that conversation.
Section 6851 was enacted in the 2022 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and took effect October 1, 2022. It is the claim that puts a number on the harm.
“The actual damages sustained by the individual or liquidated damages in the amount of $150,000, and the cost of the action, including reasonable attorney’s fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.” The court may also order a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or a permanent injunction “ordering the defendant to cease display or disclosure.”
“The court may grant injunctive relief maintaining the confidentiality of a plaintiff using a pseudonym.” That is written into the statute, not left to the judge’s general discretion.
Consent to the creation of the depiction “shall not establish that the person consented to its distribution,” and disclosing it to someone else “shall not establish” consent to further disclosure by the person being sued.
“Consent” means “an affirmative, conscious, and voluntary authorization made by the individual free from force, fraud, misrepresentation, or coercion.” “Disclose” means “to transfer, publish, distribute, or make accessible.” The claim runs against the person who did that, not someone who only received or viewed the image.
Every figure on this page is what the statute allows. What a case is worth depends on the evidence, who the defendant is, and what a court or jury finds. No outcome is guaranteed.
The section states no filing deadline, so the deadline comes from elsewhere and can turn on when the images were first disclosed. The operative sentence uses the phrase “identifiable individual,” which the section itself never defines; its definitions cover “depicted individual” instead, and a note points to another title of the Code. And the claim requires disclosure “in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce,” language that reaches most online posting but is a question in every case. Those are the three questions we answer before a federal complaint is drafted.
The claim does not cover commercial pornographic content “unless that content was produced by force, fraud, misrepresentation, or coercion of the depicted individual”; disclosures made in good faith to law enforcement, in a legal proceeding, or in medical treatment; matters of public concern; or a disclosure “reasonably intended to assist the identifiable individual.” For a person who is under 18, incompetent, incapacitated, or deceased, a legal guardian, an estate representative, another family member, or a court-appointed person may bring the claim, “but in no event shall the defendant be named as such representative or guardian.”
The TAKE IT DOWN Act added a criminal offense to federal law. It does not give you a claim you can sue on; it gives the U.S. Attorney a charge to bring, and it gives us something concrete to put in front of law enforcement for you.
It is unlawful to use an online service “to knowingly publish an intimate visual depiction of an identifiable individual who is not a minor” if the image was made where the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy, was not voluntarily exposed in a public or commercial setting, is not a matter of public concern, and the publication “is intended to cause harm” or “causes harm, including psychological, financial, or reputational harm.”
The same rule applies to a “digital forgery,” defined as an intimate depiction created or altered by software, machine learning, or artificial intelligence that “when viewed as a whole by a reasonable person, is indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual,” published without consent.
Up to two years in federal prison for an offense involving an adult. Threatening to post a real image “for the purpose of intimidation, coercion, extortion, or to create mental distress” carries the same penalty; threatening to post a digital forgery of an adult carries up to 18 months.
Consent to creating the image “shall not establish” consent to publish it, and sharing it with one person “shall not establish” consent to publication by the person charged. The criminal statute and the civil statute say the same thing.
The same Act requires covered platforms to run a notice-and-removal process and to act on a valid request “as soon as possible, but not later than 48 hours after receiving such request,” removing the depiction and making “reasonable efforts to identify and remove any known identical copies.”
A request may come from the person depicted “or an authorized person acting on behalf of such individual.” The Act does not define “authorized person.” That is the firm’s role in a case: we submit the request, document it, and use the record if the platform fails to act. A platform that fails to comply is treated as committing an unfair or deceptive practice enforceable by the Federal Trade Commission; the section gives you no claim against the platform yourself.
What to save tonight, and how we use the rule for clients, is on the what-to-do-tonight page.
A free, confidential case review tells you which claims fit your facts and what they would be worth to bring together. You can also call (561) 455-4455.
Answers come from the U.S. Code. Where the text does not answer, we say so.
Yes, since May 19, 2025. The TAKE IT DOWN Act, at 47 U.S.C. 223(h), makes it a federal offense to knowingly publish an intimate image, or an AI-generated “digital forgery,” of an identifiable adult online without consent where the publication is intended to cause harm or causes it. The penalty is up to two years. Threats to publish are covered too.
Under 15 U.S.C. 6851, actual damages or liquidated damages of $150,000, plus the cost of the action including reasonable attorney’s fees, and an injunction ordering the defendant to stop displaying or disclosing the image. Those are the figures the statute allows; what any case is worth depends on the evidence, the defendant, and what a court finds.
The statute says the court “may grant injunctive relief maintaining the confidentiality of a plaintiff using a pseudonym.” It is a request the court may grant, not an automatic right, and how it is asked for matters.
Section 6851 took effect October 1, 2022, and the statute does not say whether it reaches a disclosure made before that date or a repost made after it. That is a question of the specific dates, which is one more reason to bring every date you have.
Not under these sections. The 48-hour takedown rule is enforced by the Federal Trade Commission, and 47 U.S.C. 223a gives no private claim against a platform. The civil claim in 15 U.S.C. 6851 runs against the person who disclosed the image.
Sections 784.049, 836.13 and 836.14 each carry a civil action of their own, with $10,000 minimums and, under 784.049, punitive damages.