Workgroup for an Inclusive State Workplace - Established
HB1248 would expand Maryland’s laws addressing nonconsensual intimate imagery, often referred to as “revenge pornography,” by creating a new removal-and-notice process for large online platforms and by updating the criminal law definition of prohibited conduct. The bill requires covered platforms—public-facing websites or apps with at least 100,000 monthly U.S. users that primarily host user-generated content—to create a public process for an individual or the individual’s representative to notify the platform that an intimate visual depiction is being displayed without consent and to request removal or disabling of access. The platform would then have to act as soon as possible, and no later than 48 hours after receiving a valid request, to remove the image, disable access to copies, and prevent new copies from being accessed or displayed.
The bill also amends Maryland’s criminal revenge-porn statute to clarify and broaden key definitions, including “intimate visual depiction,” “appears to be of an actual and identifiable person,” and related terms. It expressly includes computer-generated or AI-generated images that appear to depict a real identifiable person, while excluding drawings, cartoons, sculptures, and paintings. It also revises the criminal prohibition to cover distribution of such images under specified nonconsensual and harmful circumstances, and it adds protections for court records involving victims’ images in prosecutions under the statute.
In addition to the takedown requirements, HB1248 imposes data-logging obligations on covered platforms so they preserve information needed for legal proceedings involving intimate privacy violations, while limiting use of that preserved data to those proceedings. The bill also provides liability protection for platforms that remove or disable access to content in good faith compliance with the law. The act would take effect October 1, 2025, while the platform process requirement would need to be in place by October 1, 2026.
The available legislative context shows no recorded committee transcript or vote history, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge formal support or opposition. Based on the bill text, the overall posture appears protective of victims of nonconsensual intimate imagery and aimed at modernizing the law for digital and AI-generated content. Likely points of contention would include the scope of the platform mandate, the 48-hour removal deadline, the burden on large online services, and how the law would apply to computer-generated imagery and content moderation decisions.
HB1248 would add a new section to the Commercial Law Article requiring certain large online platforms to create and publicize a removal-request process for intimate visual depictions shared without consent, and it would amend Criminal Law § 3-809 to broaden and clarify Maryland’s prohibition on nonconsensual distribution of intimate images. The bill would affect social media platforms, image-sharing services, and other user-generated-content websites meeting the user threshold, while also changing the evidentiary and privacy treatment of victim images in criminal cases arising under the statute.
The bill’s apparent purpose is strongly victim-protective and privacy-focused, with the text reflecting a clear intent to strengthen remedies for people targeted by nonconsensual intimate image sharing. Because there are no committee transcripts or votes provided, there is no direct record of legislative sentiment from debate or roll call. On the face of the bill, however, the policy direction is affirmative toward removal, enforcement, and modernization of the law to address digital platforms and AI-generated imagery.
The main likely areas of contention are the obligations placed on covered platforms, especially the requirement to remove or disable access within 48 hours and to prevent new copies from being displayed. Another possible point of dispute is the bill’s treatment of computer-generated images that appear to depict real people, which could raise questions about scope, verification, and overbreadth. Stakeholders most likely to raise concerns would be online platforms and digital services, while advocates for privacy, sexual abuse survivors, and victims of image-based abuse would likely support the measure.