Federal law criminalizes non-consensual intimate images, protects abuse victims

What it does

This bill makes it a federal crime to knowingly distribute intimate images of adults without consent, or nude images of minors with intent to abuse or humiliate them. Adults depicted must have had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and distribution must cause or be intended to cause harm. The bill exempts law enforcement, good-faith reporting of abuse, medical/educational use, and communications platforms that don't intentionally solicit such content.

Why we flagged it

The bill's operative mechanism is a criminal prohibition on non-consensual intimate image distribution, paired with victim restitution. This is a straightforward public-safety and victim-protection measure, not a regulatory carve-out, tax provision, or commemorative act.

What the text implies

• The bill's extraterritorial jurisdiction (subsection f) extends federal criminal reach to any defendant or depicted individual who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident, potentially affecting conduct occurring entirely outside U.S. territory — a significant expansion of federal criminal jurisdiction that may create conflicts with foreign law.
• The 'reckless disregard' standard in the title differs from the 'knowingly' standard in the operative text (subsection b), which may create confusion about the actual mens rea required; the operative text controls, but the discrepancy could lead to litigation over legislative intent.
• Subsection (d)(2) exempts communications service providers unless they 'intentionally solicit, or knowingly and predominantly distribute' such content — a standard that may be difficult to apply and could create safe harbors for platforms that claim passive hosting despite algorithmic amplification.

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

Who it affects

The bill directly protects citizens from a documented harm (non-consensual intimate image distribution, often used for harassment, extortion, or revenge) by creating enforceable federal penalties and victim restitution. The exceptions for law enforcement, good-faith reporting, and legitimate professional use are appropriately narrow and do not undermine the core protection.

Named in the bill

U.S. Department of Justice, Federal law enforcement agencies, State and local law enforcement, Communications service providers, Interactive computer services (social media platforms, image-hosting sites)

Where it stands

1 cosponsor: 1 Republicans.

• Feb 11, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in Senate”
• Feb 11, 2025 — Referred to Senate Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary”

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

Money around this bill

1 lobbying clients named this bill on 2 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $30,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 6 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 0% of bills with at least one filing.

Amy Klobuchar, the sponsor, reported $116,500 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• American Advertising Federation — $30,000 on 2 filings

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jun 30, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.