What legal frameworks regulate detection of CSAM and mandatory reporting by tech companies in 2025?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
U.S. federal law requires online providers who have “actual knowledge” of apparent CSAM to report it to NCMEC and gives NCMEC a conduit to law enforcement; Congress considered the STOP CSAM Act of 2025 to expand reporting, transparency and liability for large platforms (S.1829) [1] [2]. In the EU, a multi-year effort to create a CSAM Regulation has swung between proposals that would mandate scanning or detection orders and later compromises that remove blanket scanning mandates while keeping risk assessments, orders, and an EU Centre for coordination [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. U.S. baseline: reporting duties to NCMEC and the “no affirmative search” rule
U.S. statutes already require interactive computer service providers to report “apparent” CSAM to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), which then makes those reports available to law enforcement; however, authoritative summaries note providers are not, under current law, required to “affirmatively search, screen, or scan for” CSAM — a legal baseline many tech firms cite when defending encryption and limited surveillance [1] [7].
2. Legislative pressure in Washington: the STOP CSAM Act of 2025
Congressional momentum in 2025 produced the STOP CSAM Act (S.1829), which would impose new reporting and transparency obligations on very large providers — for example annual, disaggregated reports from services with more than one million monthly users and significant revenue — and would create new civil liability categories that critics say could compel broader detection practices [2] [8] [9]. The Congressional Budget Office warned the bill would likely increase litigation and change providers’ exposure to civil suits [8].
3. Civil-society and tech-sector pushback: risks to encryption and false positives
Privacy and digital-rights groups warned that expanding duties and liability could force companies to build intrusive scanning tools, undermine end-to-end encryption, and produce harmful false positives — with real-world examples cited where image-detection errors led to wrongful reports and account actions [7] [9]. Independent analyses, including a European Parliament study cited in reporting, have concluded there is no way to detect CSAM at scale without significant error rates today, a technical limitation that shapes policy debates [6].
4. EU trajectory: from “Chat Control” to targeted orders and risk assessments
The EU’s proposed CSAM Regulation initially envisioned mandatory scanning and even mechanisms to bypass or limit end-to-end encryption; subsequent negotiations and member-state positions shifted the text away from blanket scanning toward requirements for risk assessments, mitigation by providers, and the creation of an EU Centre to coordinate detection and referrals and to handle “obviously false positives” [3] [4] [5]. Reporting from late 2025 indicates the Council removed a universal scanning mandate and emphasized provider risk assessment and targeted remedies instead [5] [6].
5. State-level actions and AI-era updates in the U.S.
States have moved faster on some fronts: as of mid‑2025 many U.S. states enacted laws criminalizing AI-generated or computer-edited CSAM and California adopted platform duties (notice-and-staydown, prohibitions on facilitating exploitation) effective from January 1, 2025, tightening obligations for social media platforms within those jurisdictions [10] [11]. Advocacy groups and agencies report dramatic increases in AI-created CSAM reports, which is driving statutory updates and enforcement attention [10].
6. Competing priorities: child protection, privacy, and technical feasibility
Policymakers and advocates present two clear, competing imperatives in the sources: child-protection advocates and many law-enforcement-aligned officials press for stronger, sometimes mandatory detection and reporting mechanisms, arguing voluntary measures are insufficient; privacy and civil‑liberties advocates and some EU negotiators argue mandatory ubiquitous scanning would break encryption and create systemic harms and false positives [3] [6] [7]. Expert assessments point to real technical limits in detection accuracy that intensify this tension [6].
7. What the sources do not settle
Available sources do not mention a single, globally settled standard in 2025 that requires routine scanning of all private communications; rather they document a patchwork of U.S. federal reporting duties, proposed new federal obligations in the STOP CSAM Act, state laws criminalizing AI-CSAM, and an EU negotiation that pulled back from blanket scanning toward risk assessment and targeted orders [1] [2] [10] [5] [6]. They also do not enumerate final implementing regulations or judicial rulings that would definitively resolve how those new legislative pushes will be applied in practice (not found in current reporting).
Bottom line
In 2025 the legal environment is unsettled but clear in contours: U.S. law requires reporting known CSAM to NCMEC but historically did not force affirmative scanning [1]; Congress pushed harder with the STOP CSAM Act to increase transparency and liability for big platforms [2] [8]; and the EU moved from a broad “chat control” scanning proposal toward a framework that leans on provider risk assessments and targeted orders while avoiding an across‑the‑board scanning mandate [3] [4] [5].