Laws banning revenge porn have been slow to emerge. Contributing factors include a lack of understanding about the gravity of the problem, free speech concerns, belief that existing law provides adequate protection, The
American Civil Liberties Union and the
Electronic Frontier Foundation have drawn attention to the implications for free speech if legislation is too broad. One concern with revenge porn laws is that they may not be tailored narrowly enough to satisfy the
strict scrutiny applicable to content-based restrictions on speech. Prohibition of revenge porn may not be constitutional according to the
Miller v. California decision if the porn does not categorically appeal to the prurient interest; if it is not, in itself, patently offensive; or if it has literary or political value.
Africa In South Africa, the Films and Publications Amendment Act, 2019 makes it a crime to distribute a private sexual photograph or film without the consent of the pictured individual and with the intent to cause them harm. The penalty is a fine of up to
R150,000 and/or up to two years' imprisonment; or double that if the victim is identifiable in the photograph or film.
Asia Since 2009, the Philippines has criminalized copying, reproducing, sharing or exhibiting sexually explicit images or videos over the Internet without written consent of the individual depicted. Japan passed a bill in November 2014 which made it a crime to communicate "a private sexual image of another person" without consent. In South Korea the distribution of revenge porn is punishable by up to three years' imprisonment or by a fine of up to 5 million
South Korean won. If the subject is filmed illicitly the penalty is up to ten years in prison or a fine of up to 10 million won ($8,900; £6,900). The use of
hidden cameras for illicitly filming people, known as "
molka", is widespread in the country and in 2018 more than 6,000 incidents of spy-cam porn were being reported to the police annually, with only 2% of reported cases leading to a prison sentence. The website Sora.net specialised in the publishing of spy-cam porn until it was banned in 2016 following a campaign against it. Some of those depicted had committed suicide. In May 2018, ten thousand women demonstrated in Seoul demanding increased official action against digital sex crime. In October 2018 a petition of over 200,000 signatories called for increased punishment for the possession of revenge porn, regardless of whether it had been distributed.
Singapore Singapore passed the Criminal Law Reform Act on 6 May 2019, which includes the criminalisation of revenge porn. Penalties include a jail term of up to five years with fines and caning as a sentencing option. If the crime is committed against a victim under 14 years of age, a mandatory jail term will be imposed. The Act took effect on 1 January 2020.
Australia Sharing sexual images or videos without consent is unlawful under three different, but parallel, types of law in Australia; the
Civil Law, the
Criminal Law, and a
Civil Penalties scheme. Under the Civil Law, the
Supreme Court of Western Australia decision in the case of
Wilson v Ferguson, delivered on 16 January 2015, is specific precedent that establishes that the non-consensual publication of sexual images or videos on the internet is unlawful. In that case, a defendant shared sexual images and videos of the plaintiff on social media. The Court decided that the publication of "
explicit images of a former partner which had been confidentially shared between the sexual partners during their relationship" constituted a breach of an equitable obligation of confidence. Under the
Criminal Law, the Parliaments in the Australian States and Territories of
South Australia,
Victoria,
New South Wales, the
Australian Capital Territory, the
Northern Territory,
Queensland,
Western Australia, and
Tasmania, have all passed laws that amend the relevant statutory
criminal law to criminalise the non-consensual sharing of sexual images or videos. Furthermore, the
Parliament of Australia has also passed a law that amends the Commonwealth statutory criminal law (which operates in parallel to State and Territory criminal law) to criminalise the non-consensual sharing of sexual images or videos. Most jurisdictions provide for higher sentences where the image that is shared is of a child. The particular law in each of these jurisdictions is described below, in chronological order of their enactment. In March 2013, the
Parliament of South Australia passed the
Summary Offences (Filming Offences) Amendment Act (2013) (SA) that specifically created a criminal offence for distributing an invasive image or video without consent, The distribution of an invasive image offence is contained in
s. 26C of the
Summary Offences Act (1953) (SA), and the maximum penalty is A$10,000 or imprisonment for 2 years. In September 2016, the
Parliament of South Australia further passed the
Summary Offences (Filming and Sexting Offences) Amendment Act (2016) to create a criminal offence for threatening to distribute an invasive image or video, The threatening to distribute offence is contained in
s. 26DA of the
Summary Offences Act (1953) (SA), and the maximum penalty is A$5,000 or imprisonment for 1 year. On 15 October 2014, the
Parliament of Victoria passed the
Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences and Other Matters) Act (2014) (Vic) that created specific criminal offences for distributing, or threatening to distribute, a sexual image or video without consent, which commenced on 3 November 2014 (and was repealed on 6 September 2022). The distribution of an intimate image offence was contained in
s. 41DA of the
Summary Offences Act (1966) (Vic), and the maximum penalty was imprisonment for 2 years. The threatening to distribute an intimate image offence was contained in
s. 41DB of the
Summary Offences Act (1966) (Vic), and the maximum penalty was imprisonment for 1 year. On 30 August 2022, the
Parliament of Victoria further passed the
Justice Legislation Amendment (Sexual Offences and Other Matters) Act (2022) (Vic) that amended the
Summary Offences Act (1966) (Vic), which commenced on 30 July 2023. The amendment relocated the criminal offence of distributing an intimate image to
s. 53S of the
Crimes Act (1958) (Vic), and the offence of threatening to distribute an intimate image to
s. 53T of the
Crimes Act (1958) (Vic). The maximum penalty for either offence is imprisonment for 3 years. Furthermore, this Act created a disposal order scheme. The intimate image disposal order is contained in
s. 53Z of the Crimes Act (1958) (Vic). On 21 June 2017, the
Parliament of New South Wales passed the
Crimes Amendment (Intimate Images) Act (2017) (NSW) that created specific criminal offences for distributing, or threatening to distribute, or threatening to record, an intimate image or video without consent, and provided for Rectification Orders that empower a Court to order the removal and destruction of the intimate image or video, The distribution of an intimate image offence is contained in
s. 91Q of the
Crimes Act (1900) (NSW), and the maximum penalty is an A$11,000 fine, or imprisonment for 3 years, or both. The threatening to distribute, or threatening to record an intimate image offences, are contained in
s. 91R of the
Crimes Act (1900) (NSW), and the maximum penalty for either offences is an A$11,000 fine, or imprisonment for 3 years, or both. The contravention of a Rectification Order offence is contained in
s. 91S of the
Crimes Act (1900) (NSW), and the maximum penalty is an A$5,500 fine, or imprisonment for 2 years, or both. On 16 August 2017, the
Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory passed the
Crimes (Intimate Image Abuse) Amendment Act (2017) (ACT) that created specific criminal offences for distributing, or threatening to distribute, or threatening to capture, an intimate image or video without consent, and provided for Rectification Orders that empower a Court to order the removal and destruction of the intimate image or video, The distribution of an intimate image offence is contained in
s. 72C of the
Crimes Act (1900) (ACT), and the maximum penalty is A$45,000 or imprisonment for 3 years, or both. The threatening to distribute, or threatening to capture, an intimate image offences are contained in
s. 72E of the
Crimes Act (1900) (ACT), and the maximum penalty is A$45,000 or imprisonment for 3 years, or both. The contravention of a Rectification Order offence is contained in
s. 72H of the
Crimes Act (1900) (ACT), and the maximum penalty is an A$30,000 fine, or imprisonment for 2 years, or both. On 22 March 2018, the
Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory passed the
Criminal Code Amendment (Intimate Images) Act (2018) (NT) that created specific criminal offences for distributing, or threatening to distribute, an intimate image or video without consent, and provided for Rectification Orders that empower a Court to order the removal and destruction of the intimate image or video, The distribution of an intimate image offence is contained in
s. 208AB of the
Criminal Code Act (1983) (NT), and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 3 years. The threatening to distribute an intimate image offence is contained in
s. 208AC of the
Criminal Code Act (1983) (NT), and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 3 years. The contravention of a Rectification Order offence is contained in
s. 208AE of the
Criminal Code Act (1983) (NT), and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 2 years. On 16 August 2018, the
Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia passed the
Enhancing Online Safety (Non‑consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Act (2018) (Cth) that created specific criminal offences (that operates in parallel to State and Territory criminal law) for distributing, or threatening to distribute, a sexual image or video without consent, On 13 February 2019, the
Parliament of Queensland passed the
Criminal Code (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Amendment Act (2019) (Qld) that created specific criminal offences for distributing, or threatening to distribute, an intimate image or video without consent, and provided for Rectification Orders that empower a Court to order the removal and destruction of the intimate image or video, The distribution of an intimate image offence is contained in
s. 223 of the
Criminal Code Act (1899) (Qld), and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 3 years. The threatening to distribute an intimate image offence is contained in
s. 229A of the
Criminal Code Act (1899) (Qld), and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 3 years. The contravention of a Rectification Order offence is contained in
s. 229AA of the
Criminal Code Act (1899) (Qld), and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 2 years. On 19 February 2019, the
Parliament of Western Australia passed the
Criminal Law Amendment (Intimate Images) Act (2018) (WA) that created specific criminal offences for distributing, or threatening to distribute, an intimate image or video without consent, and provided for Rectification Orders that empower a Court to order the removal and destruction of the intimate image or video, The distribution of an intimate image offence is contained in
s. 221BD of the Criminal Code Act Compilation Act (1913) (WA), and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 3 years. The threatening to distribute an intimate image offence is contained in
s. 338 of the Criminal Code Act Compilation Act (1913) (WA), and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 3 years. The contravention of a Rectification Order offence is contained in
s. 221BE of the Criminal Code Act Compilation Act (1913) (WA), and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 1 year and an A$12,000 fine. On 19 September 2019, the
Parliament of Tasmania passed the
Criminal Code Amendment (Bullying) Act (2019) (Tas) that extended the criminal offence of stalking to include distributing an offensive image or video, The distribution of an offensive image offence is contained in
s. 192(1) of the
Criminal Code Act (1924) (Tas), and the offence is a serious indictable crime that can only be tried on indictment in the Supreme Court. The threat offence is contained in
s. 192(1)(ea) of the
Criminal Code Act (1924) (Tas), and the offence is a serious indictable crime that can only be tried on indictment in the Supreme Court. Under the
civil penalties scheme, Australians can report the posting, or threatened posting, of sexual images and videos without consent, to the Australian Government Office of the eSafety Commissioner. The eSafety Commissioner is empowered to receive and investigate complaints, issue take-down notices, and enforce civil penalties against individuals and corporations who fail to comply. In October 2017, the Office of the eSafety Commissioner launched the Image Based Abuse online reporting portal, which enables Australians to report non-consensually shared sexual images and videos that had been posted to social media, or websites, and enables the eSafety Commissioner to seek their removal. On 16 August 2018, the
Parliament of Australia passed
Enhancing Online Safety (Non‑consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Act (2018) (Cth) that establishes a
civil penalties scheme. Furthermore, under this law, a person who non-consensually posts, or threatens to post, an intimate image or video may be liable for a
civil penalty. This law also empowers the eSafety Commissioner to issue removal notices requiring providers of a social media service, a relevant electronic service, or a designated internet service, to remove the intimate image from the service. Similar powers can be enforced against end-users, and hosting service providers.
Civil penalties for individuals are up to a maximum of A$105,000 and for corporations are up to a maximum of A$525,000. 49 states (all except South Carolina) have laws against revenge porn as of June 2024. The law has also been used to prosecute several men who allegedly distributed revenge porn of their ex-girlfriends.
Mary Anne Franks, a law professor and constitutional scholar who drafted the model legislation and advised legislators in the majority of the above states, emphasizes that many of these laws are still deeply flawed. Representatives from the Department of Justice, California's Office of the Attorney General, 50 major technology companies, victim advocates, and legislative and law enforcement leaders joined in 2015 to form a Cyber Exploitation Working Group, and have announced the creation of a working hub "to combat so-called cyber exploitation – the practice of anonymously posting explicit photographs of others online, often to extort money from the victims." As of October 1, 2022, a new section of the
US Federal Code,
Civil action relating to disclosure of intimate images, went into effect. This was passed via Section 1309 of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 and amended the
Violence Against Women Act, allowing victims of revenge porn to file
civil suits against those who released the materials. Victims may sue for up to US$150,000 in
actual damages as well as
legal fees; restraining orders and injunctions may also be issued to temporarily or permanently halt any further distribution or disclosure. It is the first Federal law concerning revenge porn and helps address the patchwork of state laws in effect at the time of its passage. The burden of bringing such a suit is still on the victim and the code does not formally criminalize the release of revenge porn. Communications platforms, including websites, would be liable if they solicited such material or if they deal predominantly in revenge porn. Importantly, the legal code includes specific wording which holds that a victim's allowance of such materials to be created and any instances where the victim shared that material with specific individuals do not imply wholesale consent to share the material with any other individuals, two commonly anticipated defenses which defendants may raise. Though it failed to pass both Houses by the end of 2024, it was reintroduced in 2025, unanimously passed the Senate and passed the House on a 409-2 vote by April 28, 2025. President
Donald Trump signed the act into law on May 19, 2025. Observers have also noted the shame which may make many victims reluctant to report or pursue such investigations. While victims of sexual abuse can have their identities kept out of court proceedings, which will only refer to them as
Jane Doe or
John Doe, few such safeguards exist for victims of revenge porn. Depending on jurisdiction, images in court cases may be entered as evidence and become publicly viewable. Suggestions have been made to revise evidentiary laws to allow anonymization of plaintiffs and
de-identification of images entered as evidence. specifically allowed for injunctions to preserve plaintiff anonymity when filing civil suits in Federal court.
Criminal prosecutions Several well-known revenge porn websites, including
IsAnyoneUp and the
Texxxan, have been taken down in response to actual or threatened legal action. The former was investigated by the FBI after anti-revenge porn activist
Charlotte Laws uncovered a hacking scheme associated with the website. Indictments for fifteen felonies were handed down under the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in January 2014 for the site owner and his accomplices, and the trial was initially set to begin in November 2014 in Los Angeles.
Hunter Moore, the owner of
IsAnyoneUp pleaded guilty to hacking and identity theft in early 2015. Moore was sentenced to two and a half years in prison on 2 December 2015. By May 2017, Moore was out of prison. In December 2013, California Attorney General
Kamala Harris charged Kevin Bollaert, who ran the revenge porn website
UGotPosted, with 31 felony counts, including
extortion and
identity theft. In March 2014, because the victim was under eighteen years old in the photos, a court in Ohio awarded damages of $385,000 against Bollaert. In April 2015 Bollaert was sentenced to 18 years in prison. "Sitting behind a computer, committing what is essentially a cowardly and criminal act, will not shield predators from the law or jail", said Attorney General Harris following the verdict. Casey Meyering, the operator of revenge porn website
WinByState, was arrested in Oklahoma in 2014 and extradited to Napa County. Meyering's website invited users to submit nude photos of ex-girlfriends and other women, with the photos categorized by state. He would then make the women featured on his website pay $250 to have their photos taken down. There were about 400 images of California women on the website, including at least one in Napa Valley, where California Attorney General
Kamala Harris had filed the case. After originally pleading not guilty, on 8 May 2015, the 28-year-old man pleaded no contest to one count of
extortion, three counts of attempted extortion, and one count of
conspiracy. He was sentenced to three years' imprisonment as of early June 2015. In August 2023, a jury in Harris County, Texas, returned a $1.2 billion verdict on behalf of a woman identified as "D.L." or "Jane Doe" in court filings. The unanimous verdict found that Marques Jamal Jackson had distributed revenge porn in violation of the Texas' revenge porn law. The verdict included $200 million in compensatory damages and $1 billion in punitive damages.
Tort and privacy law States without specific laws about revenge porn have seen lawsuits alleging
invasion of privacy,
public disclosure of private fact and
intentional infliction of emotional distress against the individuals who uploaded the images. Forty states, including California, New Jersey, and New York, have
anti-cyberharassment laws that may be applicable to cases of revenge porn. In February 2014, a US$500,000 settlement was awarded to a Texas woman who brought suit against her ex-boyfriend for posting video and photos of her on the Internet. The state did not have a specific "revenge porn" law at the time of the lawsuit. California has a private right of action in tort for acts of revenge pornography within the civil code, as well as a specific criminal statute punishing revenge pornography as an invasion of privacy.
Communications Decency Act §230 Some revenge porn lawsuits have named service providers and websites as defendants alongside individuals who uploaded the images.
Section 230 (§230) of the
Communications Decency Act shields websites and service providers from liability for content posted by users providing they are not themselves co-creators of the content. If user-generated content posted to a website does not violate copyright or federal criminal laws, sites have no obligation to remove the content under §230.
Copyright According to a survey conducted by the
Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, an estimated 80% of revenge porn pictures and videos are taken by the subjects themselves. Those individuals can bring actions for
copyright infringement against the person who uploaded their nude or semi-nude "
selfies". American victims may file
Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notices with service providers. Revenge porn site
MyEx.com has been a defendant in a copyright infringement case.
First Amendment and anti-SLAPP Some
free speech advocates object to revenge porn laws on
First Amendment grounds, citing the fact that US laws restricting expression have a history of being overturned. Journalist Sarah Jeong argues that new criminal laws meant to combat revenge porn are likely to be
overbroad, resulting in unintended consequences. Revenge porn uploaders and websites may also challenge lawsuits using state protections against
strategic lawsuit against public participations (anti-SLAPP laws), which allow defendants to counter lawsuits aimed at stifling free speech.
Europe Many European countries have broad privacy statutes that may be applicable to revenge porn. France also criminalizes the willful violation of the intimate private life of another by "transmitting the picture of a person who is within a private place, without the consent of the person concerned". A German
High Court made a May 2014 ruling that intimate photographs of partners should be deleted if the partner so requests.
Germany In Germany "Revenge porn" is illegal. It is prosecuted using several existing laws, rather than one specific offence. Section 201a of the Criminal Code is the main one used.
Ireland In 2020 Ireland passed the
Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act 2020, which introduced two new criminal offences: • The taking, distribution, publication or threat to distribute intimate images without consent, and with intent to cause harm to the victim - this carries a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine and/or seven years imprisonment. • The taking, distribution or publication of intimate images without consent without a requirement that the person intended to cause harm to the victim - this carries a maximum penalty of a fine of €5,000 fine and/or up to twelve months in prison.
Malta A law criminalising revenge porn in Malta entered into force in November 2016. Article 208E of the Maltese Criminal Code punishes whoever, with an intent to cause distress, emotional harm or harm of any nature, discloses a private sexual photograph or film without the consent of the person or persons displayed or depicted in such photograph or film. Such person would, on conviction be liable to imprisonment for a term of up to two years or to a fine of not less than €3,000 and not more than €5,000, or to both such imprisonment and fine.
United Kingdom England and Wales In 2012, the English singer-songwriter
Tulisa Contostavlos obtained an injunction preventing the distribution of a sex tape of her and a former lover that had been published on the internet. The case was set to include considerable damages, but was settled out of court before it could be considered. A House of Lords Committee, in a report on social media and the law, subsequently called for clarification from the
DPP as to when revenge porn becomes a crime. The
Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 received
Royal Assent. Section 33 of the Act makes it an offence in England and Wales to disclose private sexual photographs and films without the consent of the individual depicted and with the intent to cause distress. There is a maximum sentence of two years' imprisonment. On 23 April 2015, a seminar was held in
Westminster on the new legislation. The seminar was organised by the
Oxford Human Rights Hub and co-hosted with the law firm McAllister Olivarius, the
End Violence Against Women Coalition, the
University of Durham, and the
University of Birmingham. The seminar called for the law to be extended to cover
upskirting, a change that was subsequently made with the passing of the
Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019. In June 2015
Chrissy Chambers, a
YouTube star from the United States, pursued a civil suit against her British ex-boyfriend who posted sexually-explicit videos taken without her knowledge or consent to
Facebook where they were
repeatedly shared. Chambers chose to pursue a civil case as the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 does not apply retroactively to content posted prior to its passage. She was represented by McAllister Olivarius and in January 2018 won "substantial damages". Drawing on this and other cases, Dr.
Ann Olivarius of the same firm gave a
TEDxReading talk on "Revenge Porn: The Naked Truth". Between April 2015 (the date that section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 came into force) and December 2015 the number of reported incidents of revenge pornography in England and Wales was 1,160. However, 61% of them resulted in no action being taken and the number of people prosecuted for disclosing private sexual images during the legislation's first year was 206. It emerged that cases of those who had been victims of revenge porn before April 2015 were not pursued under the new law, causing criticism that perpetrators "got away with" their crimes when committed before the Act came into force. Before April 2015, the law most applicable to revenge porn, specifically image-based sexual abuse, was the
1988 Malicious Communication Act, and "With police officers' understanding of revenge porn now being based on the newer legislation, prosecution under the Malicious Communications Act for similar cases is less likely to be considered. And so police officers may be less likely to consider alternative legislation for those cases which predate April 2015."
Scotland In Scotland, revenge porn became a specific offence in April 2016 with the adoption of the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm Act, which came into force in July 2017.
Northern Ireland In Northern Ireland, revenge porn was made a crime in February 2016 through the amendment of an existing law. ==Prenuptial agreements==