What penalties exist for sharing or distributing nonconsensual intimate images in the United States?
Executive summary
Federal and state law now treat the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images as criminal and civilly actionable conduct, with the new TAKE IT DOWN Act creating federal criminal penalties (fines, mandatory restitution, and prison) and a platform notice-and-removal regime while states continue to vary in severity and remedies (including some felony penalties and civil suits) [1] [2] [3].
1. What the new federal law does and the penalties it creates
The TAKE IT DOWN Act, signed into law May 19, 2025, makes knowingly publishing nonconsensual intimate visual depictions — including AI‑generated deepfakes intended to harm — a federal offense, exposing perpetrators to criminal penalties that include fines, mandatory restitution, and imprisonment (statutory terms differ by offense: generally up to two years for adult victims and higher penalties when minors are involved, commonly up to three years) [1] [4] [2]. The statute also criminalizes threats to publish intimate depictions and, under some analyses, carries specific penalties for sharing or threatening to share deepfakes and depictions of minors, with commentary noting fines and imprisonment terms of up to three years and some distinct sentencing windows for different conduct [5] [1].
2. Platform duties, timing, and federal enforcement tools
Beyond criminalization, the Act compels “covered platforms” — broadly defined as public websites, online services, apps that host user content or routinely publish NCII — to implement a clear notice‑verification‑removal process within one year of enactment (effectively by May 19, 2026), and to remove or disable access to specified material within tight timeframes (many legal summaries describe a 48‑hour removal expectation once a valid request is filed) [6] [7] [3]. The law authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to treat platform noncompliance as unfair or deceptive trade practices, creating an administrative enforcement path in addition to criminal prosecutions [4] [6].
3. The patchwork of state laws and how penalties vary
All 50 states have enacted some form of NCII or “revenge porn” law in recent years, but definitions, mens rea (intent) requirements, and punishments vary widely: some states treat first offenses as misdemeanors with short jail terms and modest fines, while others escalate repeat or particularly harmful disclosures to felonies carrying multi‑year prison terms and larger fines (examples cited include first‑offense jail and fines in California, one‑year maximums in New York, and Washington’s law that can reach five years and $10,000 for aggravated or repeat conduct) [8] [9] [10]. Advocacy groups and state attorneys general note gaps remain — especially for AI‑generated deepfakes and remedies that force removal rather than merely awarding damages — which helped drive the federal law [11] [12].
4. Civil remedies, prior federal actions, and practical limitations
Before TAKE IT DOWN, Congress had already opened a federal civil path in 2022 allowing victims to sue for disclosure of intimate images; states have long offered civil claims as well; nonetheless survivors and advocates have argued monetary awards alone are insufficient without practical removal tools, which the federal notice‑and‑remove regime aims to address [9] [11]. The new federal law, however, does not create a private federal right of action for platform noncompliance and leaves open questions about interaction with Section 230 immunity and exactly how courts and agencies will treat conflicting claims — points that legal commentators and the Congressional Research Service predict will spark litigation and agency guidance [6] [12].
5. Competing perspectives and open questions
Supporters frame the Act as closing a national enforcement gap — standardizing criminal penalties, forcing platforms to act, and covering deepfakes — while critics and some legal observers warn of potential overbreadth, enforcement complexities, and unanswered questions about timing, definitions (what counts as “publish”), and Section 230 interplay that could produce uneven outcomes or constitutional challenges [12] [6]. Legal advisories emphasize platforms must prepare compliance plans now, even as courts, the FTC, and state prosecutors sort out the statute’s scope in practice [5] [4].