Nonconsensual Image Sharing Penalties Jump to $500,000: New Law Tightens Civil Action Rules

The “Increased Accountability for Nonconsensual Pornography Act of 2025” is making some serious changes to how civil lawsuits work when someone shares intimate images without consent. This isn't about creating a new crime; it’s about giving victims more financial leverage and a clearer path to justice in civil court by amending Section 1309 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022.

The Financial Hammer Just Got Heavier

The most significant change here is the money. If someone is found liable for sharing intimate images without permission, the maximum statutory damages they can be ordered to pay is skyrocketing. The current cap is $150,000, but this bill jacks that up to a cool $500,000. Think of this as a major deterrent. For victims, this means the potential for real financial recovery is three times higher, reflecting the severe, often permanent damage caused by nonconsensual image sharing. For anyone considering sharing private photos of an ex or acquaintance, the cost of that decision just went up by $350,000.

Fine Print: Who Can Sue and For What

Beyond the dollar signs, the bill tweaks the legal definitions surrounding these cases. First, it cleans up the list of prohibited conduct that triggers the right to sue, removing one specific category from the previous law to streamline the definition. More importantly, it adjusts the language defining the victim in these lawsuits. The existing law requires the person involved in the image to be “conscious” during the conduct; this bill adds the word “competent” right after it. The text is a little vague on whether this refers to the victim’s state or the perpetrator’s, but in context, it seems aimed at clarifying the standing of the victim.

This addition of “competent” could be a double-edged sword. While it might be intended to ensure legal clarity, it could potentially introduce a new hurdle for victims. For example, a defendant might try to argue that the victim was not legally “competent” at the time the image was created or disclosed, adding a layer of subjective legal debate to an already painful process. However, the bill also makes a technical adjustment to ensure the definition explicitly includes “an identifiable individual engaging in sexually explicit conduct,” which helps keep the focus where it should be: on protecting the person whose privacy was violated.

Ultimately, this legislation focuses on strengthening the civil recourse available to victims. By dramatically increasing the financial penalty, it sends a clear message that nonconsensual disclosure of intimate images is a high-stakes violation of privacy with serious financial consequences for those found responsible.