By Steve Levine · Updated July 18, 2026 · 8 min read
Quick Answer
15 U.S.C. § 6851 is a federal civil law — added by the 2022 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and officially headed "Civil action relating to disclosure of intimate images" — that lets a person whose intimate images are shared without consent sue in federal court. A plaintiff can recover their actual damages or $150,000 in liquidated damages, plus attorney's fees, and can ask the court to order the images taken down. It is a civil remedy the victim controls, separate from any criminal case. This page is a plain-English reference and is not legal advice.
On this page
The federal "intimate image protection" law is codified at 15 U.S.C. § 6851. Congress created it as Section 1309 of the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022, which was enacted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022. Its official U.S. Code heading is "Civil action relating to disclosure of intimate images"; it is commonly described as the federal intimate image protection or "nonconsensual pornography" statute rather than by a formal short title.
The core of the statute is a private civil cause of action. In plain terms, if an individual's intimate visual depiction is disclosed — in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or using any means or facility of interstate commerce, such as the internet — without that individual's consent, and the person who disclosed it knew or recklessly disregarded that the individual had not consented, then the individual may bring a lawsuit against that person in federal district court.
This is a civil law, not a criminal one. It does not send anyone to jail; instead, it lets the victim personally sue for money damages and a court order. Criminal prosecution for the same conduct, where available, happens under separate federal or state statutes.
The statute defines several terms that decide whether a claim fits:
- Consent. An affirmative, conscious, and voluntary authorization made by the individual, free from force, fraud, misrepresentation, or coercion. Two points matter here: consenting to the creation of an image does not establish consent to its disclosure, and disclosing an image to one person does not establish consent to its further disclosure by others.
- Disclose. To transfer, publish, distribute, or make accessible. Posting to a website, sending to a group chat, or uploading to a forum can all be a disclosure.
- Intimate visual depiction. The statute borrows the definition of "visual depiction" from federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2256(5)) and covers images showing uncovered genitals, the pubic area, the anus, or the post-pubescent female nipple of an identifiable individual, the display or transfer of bodily sexual fluids, or an identifiable individual engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
- Identifiable individual. A person who is recognizable from the image itself or from information displayed with or otherwise connected to it.
The knowledge standard is important: the person who disclosed the image must have known, or recklessly disregarded, that the depicted individual had not consented. An accidental, consented-to, or clearly authorized disclosure is not what the statute targets.
A plaintiff who prevails may recover:
- Damages. Either the actual damages the individual sustained, or liquidated damages of $150,000 — the plaintiff can choose the $150,000 figure instead of having to prove exact losses.
- Costs and fees. The cost of the action, including reasonable attorney's fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
- Equitable relief. In addition to money, the court may order a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or a permanent injunction directing the defendant to cease displaying or disclosing the images.
- Confidentiality. The court may grant injunctive relief maintaining the confidentiality of a plaintiff who uses a pseudonym, allowing a survivor to litigate as "Jane Doe" or "John Doe" rather than under their real name.
The person depicted in the intimate image is the one who may sue, and the defendant is the person who made the nonconsensual disclosure. The case is filed in an appropriate U.S. district court because it is a federal claim.
The statute of limitations is 10 years. The clock starts on the later of two dates: when the individual reasonably discovers the violation, or the date the individual turns 18. That means a person who was a minor when images were disclosed generally has until roughly age 28 to file, and an adult generally has 10 years from reasonable discovery. Because deadlines and how a court measures "reasonable discovery" turn on the specific facts, anyone considering a claim should confirm timing with a lawyer.
The statute carves out several categories so it does not reach lawful or good-faith conduct. A person generally may not bring a § 6851 claim over:
- Commercial pornographic content, unless that content was produced by force, fraud, misrepresentation, or coercion of the depicted individual.
- Good-faith disclosures made to a law enforcement officer or agency, as part of a legal proceeding, as part of medical education, diagnosis, or treatment, or in reporting or investigating unlawful content or unwelcome conduct.
- Matters of public concern or public interest.
- Disclosures reasonably intended to assist the depicted individual.
These carve-outs are why context matters. The same image can be inside or outside the statute depending on who disclosed it, why, and whether the depicted person consented.
Section 6851 as enacted in 2022 addresses the disclosure of an intimate visual depiction of an identifiable individual. Whether that language reaches a fully AI-generated "deepfake" — an image that was never a real photograph of the person — has been debated, which is why Congress took up follow-on legislation.
The DEFIANCE Act of 2025 (short for "Disrupt Explicit Forged Images And Non-Consensual Edits Act") was written to amend § 6851 to expressly add a civil claim for intimate "digital forgeries," including AI-altered and computer-generated depictions, and to raise available liquidated damages for certain aggravated cases. As of July 2026, the DEFIANCE Act had passed the U.S. Senate but had not yet been enacted into law, so it is a pending bill rather than current law; the amendments it describes take effect only if and when it is signed.
The TAKE IT DOWN Act, signed into law in May 2025, is a separate measure. It is primarily a criminal statute and creates a federal requirement that covered online platforms remove flagged nonconsensual intimate images — including certain AI deepfakes — within 48 hours of a valid request, enforced by the Federal Trade Commission. It works alongside, rather than replacing, the private civil remedy in § 6851. Because deepfake and nonconsensual-image law is changing quickly, the exact reach of each statute is best confirmed with current legal guidance.
Nonconsensual intimate images and AI deepfakes are at the center of a growing wave of litigation OCA tracks. The xAI Grok deepfake class action is a leading example: plaintiffs allege an AI service generated and published sexualized deepfake images of real women without consent — exactly the kind of conduct the intimate image protection framework is meant to address.
These cases also intersect with the platform-liability questions covered in our Section 230 guide, because a key dispute is whether an online service is merely hosting user content or is itself creating or developing the images. Other related concepts include Article III standing (the concrete-injury requirement a plaintiff must meet in federal court) and injunctive relief (the takedown-style court orders § 6851 makes available).
This page is a plain-English reference, not legal advice. How 15 U.S.C. § 6851 applies to any particular situation depends on the facts and the court.
What is 15 U.S.C. § 6851 in simple terms?
It is a federal law that lets a person whose intimate images are shared without consent file a civil lawsuit in federal court. Congress added it in the 2022 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. A person who wins can recover actual damages or $150,000 in liquidated damages, plus attorney's fees, and can ask the court to order the images taken down.
Is 15 U.S.C. § 6851 a criminal law or a civil law?
It is a civil law. It lets the victim personally sue the person who disclosed the images for money damages and a court order. It is separate from any criminal charges. The 2025 TAKE IT DOWN Act is the federal criminal companion, and many states also have their own criminal and civil laws.
How much can you sue for under 15 U.S.C. § 6851?
A plaintiff can recover either the actual damages they suffered or liquidated damages of $150,000, whichever they choose, along with the cost of the lawsuit including reasonable attorney's fees. The court can also order equitable relief such as a restraining order or injunction requiring the defendant to stop displaying or disclosing the images.
What is the deadline to file a lawsuit under § 6851?
The statute of limitations is 10 years. The clock runs from the later of two dates: when the person reasonably discovers the violation, or the date the person turns 18 years old.
Does 15 U.S.C. § 6851 cover AI deepfakes and fake nude images?
The statute as enacted in 2022 addresses disclosure of an intimate visual depiction of an identifiable individual, and whether it reaches fully AI-generated "deepfake" images has been debated. The DEFIANCE Act of 2025 was written to amend § 6851 to expressly add a civil claim for intimate "digital forgeries," including AI-altered and computer-generated images. As of July 2026 the DEFIANCE Act had passed the U.S. Senate but had not yet been enacted, so it is a pending bill rather than current law.
Can I keep my name private if I sue under § 6851?
The statute lets the court grant injunctive relief maintaining the confidentiality of a plaintiff who uses a pseudonym, such as filing as "Jane Doe." Whether and how that applies is decided by the court based on the facts of the case.
Does consenting to take a photo mean I consented to it being shared?
No. Under the statute, the fact that someone consented to the creation of an image does not by itself establish consent to its disclosure, and disclosing an image to one person does not establish consent to further disclosure. Consent must be an affirmative, conscious, and voluntary authorization free from force, fraud, misrepresentation, or coercion.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
