What federal statutes define CSAM and what elements must prosecutors prove?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Federal law treats child sexual abuse material (CSAM) as evidence of child sexual abuse and criminalizes production, distribution, solicitation and possession under multiple statutes; Congress has recently advanced the STOP CSAM Act of 2025 to broaden reporting, provider obligations, victim protections and new provider liability [1] [2]. Courts and advocates disagree about how broadly statutes reach AI-generated or encrypted material and about constitutional limits on platform searches and provider duties [3] [4].
1. Which federal statutes currently cover CSAM — the headline list
Federal statutes criminalizing what Congress historically called “child pornography” and now frames as “child sexual abuse material” include provisions that make it a federal crime to produce, distribute, solicit, or possess visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct involving minors; the Congressional Research Service summarizes that “various federal statutes criminalize the production, distribution, solicitation, and possession of ‘child pornography,’ defined in part as ‘any visual depiction’ of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor” [3]. Advocacy and victim groups summarize and update that federal law treats CSAM as evidence of child sexual abuse and imposes severe penalties on creators, possessors and distributors [1].
2. What prosecutors must prove in typical CSAM cases
Prosecutors rely on statutes that require proof of (a) a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a person under 18, and (b) the defendant’s conduct (production, distribution, solicitation, or knowing possession). Practical materials for prosecutors emphasize introducing exemplar images or videos as exhibits and using file identifiers (filenames, hash values) to tie specific files to the defendant; possession charges commonly require proof of knowing possession, not merely that files were on a device [5]. Training and practice resources for prosecutors focus on digital-evidence techniques and selection of representative exhibits to meet the burden of proof [6] [7].
3. How statutory language and practice are evolving — STOP CSAM Act of 2025
Congress has taken up the STOP CSAM Act of 2025 to modernize federal law: the bill renames and reframes statutes, strengthens provider reporting to NCMEC’s CyberTipline, requires large platforms to submit transparency reports, enhances victim restitution tools and creates new civil and criminal exposure for providers who “promote or facilitate” CSAM [2] [8] [9]. Congressional and CBO materials show the bill would expand provider duties and likely increase civil suits and reporting obligations [2] [8].
4. Constitutional and civil-liberties disputes that affect prosecutions
Legal commentators and policy sources note two competing issues: first, courts are grappling with Fourth Amendment limits when private providers scan user data or report CSAM, and appellate courts have often ruled that private provider searches are not government searches — a point that shapes what evidence is admissible and how providers act [3]. Second, civil liberties groups argue the STOP CSAM Act risks undermining end-to-end encryption and forcing takedowns of lawful content, creating a policy tradeoff between detection and privacy [4].
5. The synthetic/AI-material problem — what statutes say and what they don’t
Many federal materials and advocacy groups assert prosecutors can and do charge cases involving images that may be AI-generated under existing CSAM laws, but state-level coverage varies and statutes are rapidly changing to expressly include AI or computer-generated CSAM; national advocates report most states have moved to criminalize such material while a small number have not [10] [11]. Available sources do not provide a consolidated federal statutory text here that explicitly defines the legal treatment of purely synthetic CSAM beyond noting Congress is updating statutes via STOP CSAM [1] [2].
6. Prosecutorial practice, evidentiary tools and real-world outcomes
Prosecutors typically use hash-matching and selective exhibits to prove counts and may charge many files individually; the NDAA and practitioner guides teach strategies for proving age, identity and knowing possession while defenses often attack knowledge or authorship [5] [6]. News coverage of recent federal sentences underscores active enforcement and significant penalties for possession and distribution under current federal law [12].
7. Conflicting agendas and the implications for justice and privacy
Law enforcement and victim-advocacy groups emphasize the need for stronger provider duties, transparency reports and restitution mechanisms to identify victims and hold platforms accountable [13] [8]. Civil-liberties advocates, including the EFF, warn that expanded duties could weaken encryption and chill lawful speech or platform functionality [4]. The STOP CSAM Act sits at the center of this clash: it aims to improve detection and victim support but raises explicit privacy and technical-security concerns [2] [4].
Limitations: statutory texts and precise elements differ by specific federal code sections; available sources summarize scope and reform but do not quote every charged statute’s language in full here, and they do not resolve whether all AI-generated images are uniformly treated under current federal statute [3] [11].