On May 19, 2025, President Trump signed into law the Take It Down Act (“Act”), which bans the nonconsensual online publication of sexually explicit images and videos that are both authentic and computer-generated, and includes notice and takedown obligations for covered online platforms.
Below is a summary of key aspects of the Act.
Authentic Imagery and Digital Forgeries
Authentic Imagery. With respect to intimate visual depictions that are authentic and involve adults, the Act makes it unlawful for any person to use an interactive computer service to knowingly publish a depiction of an “identifiable” adult (e.g., based on a distinguishing characteristic such as a birthmark or recognizable feature) if: (1) it was obtained or created under circumstances in which the person knew or reasonably should have known the adult had a reasonable expectation of privacy; (2) what is depicted was not voluntarily exposed by the adult in a public or commercial setting; (3) what is depicted is not a matter of public concern; and (4) publication of the depiction is intended to cause harm or causes harm, including psychological, financial or reputational harm, to the identifiable individual. Regarding minors, the Act makes it unlawful for any person to use an interactive computer service to knowingly publish an intimate visual depiction of an identifiable individual minor with intent to abuse, humiliate, harass or degrade the minor or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.
Digital Forgeries. The Act also makes it unlawful for any person to use an interactive computer service to knowingly publish a digital forgery of an identifiable adult if (1) the digital forgery was published without the consent of the adult; (2) what is depicted was not voluntarily exposed by the identifiable individual in a public or commercial setting; (3) what is depicted is not a matter of public concern; and (4) publication of the digital forgery is intended to cause harm, or causes harm, including psychological, financial or reputational harm, to the adult. Regarding minors, the Act makes it unlawful for any person to use an interactive computer service to knowingly publish a digital forgery of an identifiable minor with intent to abuse, humiliate, harass or degrade the minor, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.
Threats. The Act also makes unlawful certain threats to commit the unlawful offenses described above.
Exceptions. The Act contains certain exceptions, such as for a lawfully authorized investigative, protective or intelligence activity of government law enforcement and intelligence agencies; a disclosure made reasonably and in good faith to law enforcement, as part of a legal proceeding, for a legitimate medical, scientific or education purpose, in the reporting of unlawful content or unsolicited or unwelcome conduct, or to seek support with respect to the receipt of an unsolicited depiction; a disclosure reasonably intended to assist the identifiable individual; a person who possesses or publishes an intimate visual depiction of himself or herself engaged in nudity or sexually explicit conduct; or the publication of an intimate visual depiction that constitutes child pornography (as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2256) or a visual depiction relating to obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children (as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1466A).
Notice and Takedown Provisions
The Act also requires “covered platforms” (including certain websites, online services, online applications and mobile applications) to establish a process whereby an individual (or an authorized person acting on their behalf) may notify the covered platform of an intimate visual depiction published on the covered platform that includes the individual and was published without the individual’s consent to request removal of the depiction. Upon receiving a valid removal request, covered platforms must, within 48 hours of receiving the request, remove the intimate visual depiction and make reasonable efforts to identify and remove any known identical copies of the depiction. The Act provides that these provisions will be enforced by the Federal Trade Commission.
Penalties
Remedies for noncompliance with the Act include restitution and criminal penalties including fines and imprisonment not more than two years (or three years for offenses involving minors).
Search
Recent Posts
Categories
- Behavioral Advertising
- Centre for Information Policy Leadership
- Children’s Privacy
- Cyber Insurance
- Cybersecurity
- Enforcement
- European Union
- Events
- FCRA
- Financial Privacy
- General
- Health Privacy
- Identity Theft
- Information Security
- International
- Marketing
- Multimedia Resources
- Online Privacy
- Security Breach
- U.S. Federal Law
- U.S. State Law
- Workplace Privacy
Tags
- Aaron Simpson
- Accountability
- Adequacy
- Advertisement
- Advertising
- Age Appropriate Design Code
- Age Verification
- American Privacy Rights Act
- Anna Pateraki
- Anonymization
- Anti-terrorism
- APEC
- Apple Inc.
- Argentina
- Arkansas
- Article 29 Working Party
- Artificial Intelligence
- Audit
- Australia
- Austria
- Automated Decisionmaking
- Baltimore
- Bankruptcy
- Behavioral Advertising
- Belgium
- Biden Administration
- Big Data
- Binding Corporate Rules
- Biometric Data
- Blockchain
- Bojana Bellamy
- Brazil
- Brexit
- British Columbia
- Brittany Bacon
- Brussels
- Business Associate Agreement
- BYOD
- California
- CAN-SPAM
- Canada
- Cayman Islands
- CCPA
- CCTV
- Chile
- China
- Chinese Taipei
- Christopher Graham
- CIPA
- Class Action
- Clinical Trial
- Cloud
- Cloud Computing
- CNIL
- Colombia
- Colorado
- Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Compliance
- Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
- Congress
- Connecticut
- Consent
- Consent Order
- Consumer Protection
- Consumer Rights
- Cookies
- COPPA
- Coronavirus/COVID-19
- Council of Europe
- Council of the European Union
- Court of Justice of the European Union
- CPPA
- CPRA
- Credit Monitoring
- Credit Report
- Criminal Law
- Critical Infrastructure
- Croatia
- Cross-Border Data Flow
- Cross-Border Data Transfer
- Cyber Attack
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
- Data Brokers
- Data Controller
- Data Localization
- Data Privacy Framework
- Data Processor
- Data Protection Act
- Data Protection Authority
- Data Protection Impact Assessment
- Data Transfer
- David Dumont
- David Vladeck
- Deceptive Trade Practices
- Delaware
- Denmark
- Department of Commerce
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of Homeland Security
- Department of Justice
- Department of the Treasury
- Department of Treasury
- Design
- Digital Markets Act
- District of Columbia
- Do Not Call
- Do Not Track
- Dobbs
- Dodd-Frank Act
- DORA
- DPIA
- E-Privacy
- E-Privacy Directive
- Ecuador
- Ed Tech
- Edith Ramirez
- Electronic Communications Privacy Act
- Electronic Privacy Information Center
- Electronic Protected Health Information
- Elizabeth Denham
- Employee Monitoring
- Encryption
- ENISA
- EU Data Protection Directive
- EU Member States
- European Commission
- European Data Protection Board
- European Data Protection Supervisor
- European Parliament
- European Union
- Facial Recognition Technology
- FACTA
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Fair Information Practice Principles
- Federal Aviation Administration
- Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Federal Communications Commission
- Federal Data Protection Act
- Federal Trade Commission
- FERC
- Financial Data
- FinTech
- Florida
- Food and Drug Administration
- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
- France
- Franchise
- Fred Cate
- Freedom of Information Act
- Freedom of Speech
- Fundamental Rights
- GDPR
- Geofencing
- Geolocation
- Geolocation Data
- Georgia
- Germany
- Global Privacy Assembly
- Global Privacy Enforcement Network
- Gramm Leach Bliley Act
- Hacker
- Hawaii
- Health Data
- HIPAA
- HITECH Act
- Hong Kong
- House of Representatives
- Hungary
- Illinois
- India
- Indiana
- Indonesia
- Information Commissioners Office
- Information Sharing
- Insurance Provider
- Internal Revenue Service
- International Association of Privacy Professionals
- International Commissioners Office
- Internet
- Internet of Things
- Iowa
- IP Address
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Jacob Kohnstamm
- Japan
- Jason Beach
- Jay Rockefeller
- Jenna Rode
- Jennifer Stoddart
- Jersey
- Jessica Rich
- John Delionado
- John Edwards
- Kentucky
- Korea
- Latin America
- Laura Leonard
- Law Enforcement
- Lawrence Strickling
- Legislation
- Liability
- Lisa Sotto
- Litigation
- Location-Based Services
- London
- Louisiana
- Madrid Resolution
- Maine
- Malaysia
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Meta
- Mexico
- Michigan
- Microsoft
- Minnesota
- Missouri
- Mobile
- Mobile App
- Mobile Device
- Montana
- Morocco
- MySpace
- Natascha Gerlach
- National Institute of Standards and Technology
- National Labor Relations Board
- National Science and Technology Council
- National Security
- National Security Agency
- National Telecommunications and Information Administration
- Nebraska
- NEDPA
- Netherlands
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New Zealand
- Nigeria
- Ninth Circuit
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- North Korea
- Norway
- Obama Administration
- OCPA
- OECD
- Office for Civil Rights
- Office of Civil Rights
- Office of Foreign Assets Control
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Online Behavioral Advertising
- Online Privacy
- Opt-In Consent
- Oregon
- Outsourcing
- Pakistan
- Parental Consent
- Payment Card
- PCI DSS
- Penalty
- Pennsylvania
- Personal Data
- Personal Health Information
- Personal Health Information
- Personal Information
- Personally Identifiable Information
- Peru
- Philippines
- Poland
- PRISM
- Privacy By Design
- Privacy Notice
- Privacy Policy
- Privacy Rights
- Privacy Rule
- Privacy Shield
- Profiling
- Protected Health Information
- Ransomware
- Record Retention
- Red Flags Rule
- Rhode Island
- Richard Thomas
- Right to Be Forgotten
- Right to Privacy
- Risk-Based Approach
- Rosemary Jay
- Russia
- Safe Harbor
- Sanctions
- Schrems
- Scott Kimpel
- Securities and Exchange Commission
- Security Rule
- Senate
- Sensitive Data
- Serbia
- Service Provider
- Singapore
- Smart Grid
- Smart Metering
- Social Media
- Social Security Number
- South Africa
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- South Korea
- Spain
- Spyware
- Standard Contractual Clauses
- State Attorneys General
- Steven Haas
- Stick With Security Series
- Stored Communications Act
- Student Data
- Supreme Court
- Surveillance
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Taiwan
- Targeted Advertising
- Telecommunications
- Telemarketing
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Tennessee
- Terry McAuliffe
- Texas
- Text Message
- Thailand
- Transparency
- Transportation Security Administration
- Trump Administration
- United Arab Emirates
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Unmanned Aircraft Systems
- Uruguay
- Utah
- Vermont
- Video Privacy Protection Act
- Video Surveillance
- Virginia
- Viviane Reding
- Washington
- Whistleblowing
- Wireless Network
- Wiretap
- ZIP Code