Congress criminalizes nonconsensual intimate images, mandates platform takedowns

What it does

This bill makes it a federal crime to publish nonconsensual intimate images or AI-generated deepfakes of real people without their consent, with penalties up to 2–3 years imprisonment depending on whether the victim is an adult or minor. It requires major social media and content platforms to establish a takedown process allowing victims to request removal within 48 hours, and empowers the FTC to enforce compliance as an unfair trade practice.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core mechanism is dual: it creates a federal criminal offense for publishing nonconsensual intimate images (authentic or AI-generated) and imposes a mandatory 48-hour takedown obligation on platforms, enforced by the FTC as an unfair trade practice. This is protective legislation, not a carve-out or subsidy.

What the text implies

• The 48-hour removal deadline may create operational pressure on platforms to over-remove content, potentially catching borderline cases (e.g., images shared in medical or educational contexts that fall within exceptions but are ambiguous). The good-faith immunity protects platforms, but the speed requirement may incentivize aggressive filtering.
• The bill's definition of 'digital forgery' includes AI-generated intimate images indistinguishable from authentic ones. This may create enforcement challenges: proving intent to harm and distinguishing between consensual fantasy deepfakes and non-consensual ones depends on context and platform investigation capacity.
• Platforms must identify and remove 'known identical copies' within 48 hours. This may require platforms to deploy hash-matching or fingerprinting technology at scale, creating a de facto mandate for content-identification infrastructure that could be repurposed for other surveillance or moderation purposes.
• The bill applies to any platform 'for which it is in the regular course of trade or business to publish, curate, host, or make available content of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions.' This language is broad enough to capture platforms that do not primarily host such content but occasionally do, potentially expanding FTC jurisdiction beyond major social media.
• Criminal penalties (up to 3 years for minors) and forfeiture provisions may create disparate enforcement risk: individuals with fewer resources to mount a defense face harsher exposure, while platforms themselves face only FTC civil enforcement (no criminal liability for platform operators).

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

The bill creates a direct legal remedy and platform accountability for a widespread harm (nonconsensual intimate imagery and deepfakes) that disproportionately affects women and minors. Victims gain a statutory right to removal and a federal crime to deter perpetrators, while platforms face clear compliance obligations but retain good-faith immunity for removals made in good faith.

Who stands to gain

• Content moderation and AI detection vendors (companies providing hash-matching, deepfake detection,
• Legal services firms specializing in platform compliance and FTC defense

Named in the bill

Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Interactive computer services / social media platforms, Law enforcement agencies, Intelligence agencies

Where it stands

41 cosponsors: 30 Republicans, 11 Democrats.

• Jan 22, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Jan 22, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Energy and Commerce · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce”
• Apr 8, 2025 — Markup held in committee · Congress.gov: “Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held”
• Apr 8, 2025 — Reported out of committee · Congress.gov: “Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 49 - 1”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

16 lobbying clients named this bill on 25 disclosure filings across 3 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $37,065,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 29 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 95% of bills with at least one filing.

Maria Salazar, the sponsor, reported $541,848 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• Chamber of Commerce of the U.S.A. — $17,960,000 on 1 filing
• Google Client Services LLC — $6,920,000 on 2 filings
• Ncta - the Internet & Television Association — $6,870,000 on 2 filings
• American Association for Justice — $3,610,000 on 2 filings
• News Media Alliance — $475,000 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 24, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.