Civil cause of action establishment for the nonconsensual removal of a condom
Summary
SF 662 creates a new civil cause of action in Minnesota for the nonconsensual removal of a sexually protective device, commonly referred to as “stealthing.” The bill defines “sexually protective device” broadly to include condoms and certain other barrier methods intended to prevent pregnancy or sexually transmitted infection, while excluding intrauterine devices and hormonal birth control. A person may be sued if they intentionally remove such a device without consent and cause sexual contact between the exposed sexual organ and another person’s intimate part.
The bill authorizes a court to award a wide range of remedies to a prevailing plaintiff, including general and special damages, damages for mental anguish, punitive damages, statutory damages of up to $10,000, injunctive relief, and attorney fees and costs. It also requires courts to allow confidential filings to protect plaintiff privacy. The cause of action is supplemental to other legal remedies and does not alter rights or obligations under Minnesota Statutes chapter 518A, which governs child support and related family law matters. The law would take effect August 1, 2025, and apply only to claims arising on or after that date.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would add a new civil remedy to Minnesota Statutes chapter 604, expanding liability for nonconsensual removal of condoms and similar barrier contraceptives. It would affect individuals who engage in sexual activity involving removal of a protective device without consent, and it would give affected plaintiffs access to monetary damages, equitable relief, and confidential court filings. The bill does not create a criminal offense; instead, it creates a private right of action and preserves other existing legal claims and remedies.
Sentiment
The available legislative record shows the bill was referred to the Judiciary and Public Safety Committee and then reported to pass as amended, with no recorded votes or committee transcript excerpts provided. Based on the bill’s subject matter and its progression, the measure appears to have received enough support to advance, though the absence of debate text limits insight into detailed member views. Overall, the bill’s framing suggests a policy response aimed at protecting sexual autonomy and consent.
Contention
The main point of contention likely concerns whether the conduct should be addressed through civil liability, criminal law, or both, and how broadly the new cause of action should reach. Potential concerns include proof of intent and nonconsent, privacy in litigation, and the scope of damages, especially the availability of punitive and statutory damages up to $10,000. The bill’s exclusion of IUDs and hormonal birth control may also be notable, as it limits the law to barrier methods and could draw questions about why only certain contraceptive methods are covered.
To Establish The Disrupt Explicit Forged Images And Nonconsensual Edits Act Of 2025; And To Clarify The Rights For An Individual Affected By Nonconsensual Activities Involving Intimate Digital Forgeries.