STOP CSAM Act: Tech Giants Face $1 Million Fines and New Civil Lawsuits for Failing to Report Child Exploitation

The Strengthening Transparency and Obligations to Protect Children Suffering from Abuse and Mistreatment Act of 2025, or the STOP CSAM Act, is a massive overhaul of how the federal government handles child exploitation cases, from the courtroom to the app store. If you’re a parent, a tech worker, or just someone who uses the internet, this bill has huge implications. It essentially forces online service providers to become mandatory reporters, backs up child victims with unprecedented court protections, and gives them the right to sue platforms that knowingly profit or look the other way.

The New Rules of the Digital Road

Section 4 of this bill is the part that will make every major tech company sit up and take notice. It creates mandatory reporting requirements for online service providers. If a provider gets “actual knowledge” that their platform is hosting or facilitating child sexual exploitation material (CSAM), they must report it to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children’s (NCMEC) CyberTipline within 60 days. This isn't optional; it’s the law, and the penalties for non-compliance are steep.

If a platform with over 100 million monthly active users knowingly fails to report on time or preserve evidence, they face criminal fines up to $850,000 for a first offense. That fine jumps to $1,000,000 for subsequent violations. If an individual is harmed because of that failure, the fines double. This places a significant new compliance burden on platforms, forcing them to dedicate major resources to monitoring and reporting, or risk massive financial penalties.

The End of the Liability Shield: Suing the Platforms

Perhaps the most dramatic change is found in Section 5, which creates a new civil remedy allowing victims of child sexual exploitation to sue interactive computer services (think social media, hosting companies, and app stores) directly. This new right to sue specifically bypasses Section 230 of the Communications Act, the law that typically shields platforms from liability for content posted by users.

Under the STOP CSAM Act, a victim can sue a platform if it “intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly” promoted, aided, or abetted certain exploitation crimes, or if it hosted, stored, or made child pornography available and the victim suffered personal injury as a result. If a victim wins, they can recover actual damages, or they can choose a minimum liquidated damage amount of $300,000, plus attorney fees. For victims who have struggled for years to hold platforms accountable, this is a massive shift in power, giving them a clear path to financial recovery and justice.

Stronger Courtroom Protections for Kids

Section 2 focuses on strengthening the legal safety net for child victims and witnesses in federal court. It expands the definition of injury to include psychological abuse, which is defined as a pattern of actions meant to degrade, humiliate, or terrorize a child. This is critical because it recognizes that the damage done isn't just physical—it's mental and emotional, too.

The bill also creates a strong presumption against disclosure of a “covered person’s” protected information (names, addresses, medical records, etc.) in court. For the press and the public, this means it will be much harder to access details about a child victim involved in a case, as the court must assume that disclosure would harm the child unless the party seeking the information can prove a compelling public interest that outweighs the harm. This is a clear trade-off: increased privacy and protection for the child, but less transparency in the judicial process.

Managing Money for Vulnerable Victims

Finally, the bill addresses a practical problem: how to get restitution money to victims who are minors, incapacitated, or living abroad. Section 3 allows courts to appoint a trustee or fiduciary to manage restitution payments in a trust or official account for these vulnerable victims. This ensures the money is managed in the victim’s best interest and isn't misused. The court can even order the defendant to pay the trustee’s administrative fees. This is a smart, necessary change that acknowledges the complexity of handling large financial awards for those who cannot manage them effectively themselves.