What statutory reforms or prosecutions target access‑with‑intent‑to‑view and streaming CSAM?
Executive summary
U.S. and international lawmakers are actively reshaping criminal and civil rules to target people who access CSAM with intent to view and the platforms that enable streaming and distribution, through bills that expand liability, reporting duties, and definitions to cover AI-generated content and streaming scenarios [1] [2] [3]. These reforms are colliding with privacy and encryption advocates, and the record shows legislative fixes in the U.S. and temporary regulatory carve‑outs in the EU rather than a settled global framework [4] [5].
1. STOP CSAM Act: civil liability, tightened reporting, and platform obligations
The STOP CSAM Act reintroduced in 2025 would broaden civil remedies against interactive computer services by allowing victims to sue providers for “intentional, knowing, or reckless” hosting or facilitation of child sexual exploitation and by creating new reporting and takedown obligations for platforms, including detailed CyberTipline submissions that may require hashes, IP and location data and AI flags (text of S.1829; analysis and summaries) [1] [3]. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill would impose mandates on platforms and modest federal costs, forecasting personnel and implementation expenses while projecting limited net budgetary effects [6]. Supporters cast the Act as closing enforcement gaps and incentivizing platform compliance; critics warn the language could be read to penalize encryption and force over‑removal of content [1] [6] [4].
2. Criminal law modernization: ENFORCE and related statutory expansions for AI and synthetic CSAM
Advocacy groups and draft bills are pushing federal criminal statutes to explicitly cover AI‑generated and synthetic CSAM and to harmonize sentencing and offense definitions so prosecutors can treat generated imagery as equivalent to traditional CSAM; the ENFORCE Act of 2025 is promoted as closing statutory gaps and ensuring consistent penalties for cases involving AI‑created material [2]. Other legislative proposals and advocacy materials similarly call for eliminating loopholes for obscene visual representations and extending liability and restitution mechanisms for victims, reflecting an active move to bake new technologies into existing child‑exploitation statutes [7] [2].
3. Platform detection, streaming, and the EU derogation: voluntary scanning and temporary rules
In the European Union, a temporary derogation from parts of the ePrivacy Directive has allowed platforms — including streaming and video services — to voluntarily scan for CSAM and report detections, a measure extended in several rounds and under discussion for further extensions while a permanent law is negotiated [8] [5] [9]. That interim regulation was explicitly designed as temporary, with extensions to address the practical gap while legislators craft a long‑term framework; proponents say it enables detection in streaming contexts that characteristically evade traditional hash‑based blocklists [8] [5].
4. Tension with encryption, privacy, and civil liberties advocates
Digital‑rights groups including the ACLU, EPIC and others have strongly criticized U.S. bills like STOP CSAM for weakening encryption, creating incentives to disable end‑to‑end encryption, and permitting use of encryption practices as evidence of fault, arguing this raises cybersecurity and free‑speech risks [4] [10] [11]. Industry trade groups in Europe have likewise urged negotiators to balance child safety with privacy and fundamental rights as temporary scanning rules approach expiration [12].
5. Implementation burdens, enforcement realities, and prosecutorial practice
Budgetary and implementation analyses show federal agencies and platforms would need staff and systems to process expanded reporting and compliance duties; the CBO projects modest federal spending for personnel and systems and highlights private‑sector compliance costs that could shape enforcement on the ground [6]. The available reporting and legislative texts describe statutory reforms and civil causes of action in detail, but do not document specific prosecutions that hinge on “access‑with‑intent‑to‑view” or streaming‑specific charges; reporting reviewed here does not provide case law or prosecution outcomes to demonstrate how courts will interpret new language in practice [1] [2] [3].
6. What to watch next
The key axes to monitor are Congressional floor action on STOP CSAM and ENFORCE bills, judicial interpretation of any new platform‑liability provisions, and how EU negotiators resolve the ePrivacy derogation and permanent scanning rules — each will determine whether reforms primarily drive platform compliance, create new criminal tools for prosecutors, or spur litigation over encryption and civil liberties [1] [2] [5]. Current sources map clear legislative intent and administrative cost estimates but do not yet supply follow‑through prosecutions or definitive judicial rulings that would show how “access‑with‑intent‑to‑view” and streaming CSAM will be charged and proven in court [6] [3].