Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Committee hears expert testimony on criminal and civil remedies for nonconsensual intimate images
Loading...
Summary
Experts, survivors and national organizations urged the House Judiciary Committee to adopt criminal and civil provisions protecting survivors of nonconsensual intimate‑image disclosure; witnesses debated proof‑of‑harm language and the scope of protections for AI‑generated imagery.
The House Committee on Judiciary heard extensive testimony on twin proposals to address nonconsensual disclosure of intimate images: SB 2135, which would create a criminal offense, and SB 2448, which would establish civil remedies under the Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act.
Professor Mary Anne Franks — the Uniform Law Commission reporter who helped draft the model legislation — urged narrow, carefully tailored civil language to protect survivors without sweeping in constitutionally protected speech. “SB 2,448 is currently drafted as narrowly tailored to further the compelling governmental interest of shielding matters of purely private concern from public exposure,” Franks said by Zoom, and she cautioned against broad changes that could imperil the law on First Amendment grounds.
Chris Caulfield of Imua Alliance, speaking for survivors and service providers, said criminal penalties and civil remedies play complementary roles: criminal law holds perpetrators accountable while civil suits give survivors access to damages, injunctions and expedited removal orders. Caulfield asked the committee to delete a requirement that survivors prove harm before a felony defense could be established, warning that the proof‑of‑harm threshold would create a two‑tiered system of justice that leaves many victims without remedy.
Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom provided technical amendments for the criminal bill and noted the typical statutory states of mind (intentional, knowing, reckless) that drafters use when defining offenses. The Commission on the Status of Women (Yasmine Cheney) told the committee that civil remedies are important because they can provide practical relief such as expedited content removal and attorney’s fees for survivors.
Committee members questioned witnesses about whether the bills should reach AI‑generated images and how to define a victim’s reasonable expectation of privacy without burdening survivors. Several witnesses urged removing the proof‑of‑harm requirement to avoid excluding cases where perpetrators acted for amusement or profit rather than to cause demonstrable emotional distress.
The committee deferred SB 2448 to allow the companion House bill to proceed in the Senate and signaled continued work on both criminal and civil drafts. Advocates said legislative refinement could close gaps and ensure survivors have both enforceable criminal penalties and accessible civil remedies.
