AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 28 and Title 39, Chapter 17, relative to unlawful exposure.
HB2012 amends Tennessee’s unlawful exposure law to create a private civil cause of action for a person depicted in an intimate image that is distributed without valid consent. The bill defines when consent is effective, making clear that consent to create an image does not automatically mean consent to distribute it, and requiring any distribution consent to be in a plain-language written agreement signed knowingly and voluntarily and describing the image to be shared.
The bill allows a plaintiff to recover the defendant’s monetary gain, actual damages including emotional distress, or liquidated damages of $150,000, along with punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation costs. It also authorizes injunctive and other equitable relief, including temporary restraining orders and permanent injunctions to stop further display or distribution, and permits courts to use pseudonyms or in camera proceedings to protect privacy. The bill includes exceptions for good-faith disclosures to law enforcement, disclosures made as part of legal proceedings, and good-faith distributions reasonably intended to assist the depicted person. It also preserves immunity for interactive computer services and related providers under federal law when they act in good faith to restrict access or when content is posted by another person.
In practical terms, the bill expands Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-17-318 by adding a civil remedy and detailed definitions of “distribute” and “intimate image,” while leaving the criminal unlawful exposure framework in place. It applies only to causes of action arising on or after July 1, 2026, and is intended to strengthen remedies for victims of nonconsensual intimate image sharing, often referred to as revenge porn or image-based sexual abuse.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history was strongly supportive and largely noncontroversial. The bill advanced unanimously through the House Civil Justice Subcommittee and House Judiciary Committee, then passed the House floor overwhelmingly on consent calendar passage with only one dissenting vote. That pattern suggests broad agreement on the need to provide victims with stronger civil remedies and privacy protections.
The main points of potential contention are the scope of liability and the size of the available damages, especially the $150,000 liquidated damages option and the availability of punitive damages and attorney’s fees. Another possible issue is how the bill balances victim privacy and enforcement against protections for lawful disclosures, law enforcement reporting, and internet service providers under federal law. Even so, the recorded votes indicate little organized opposition during consideration.
The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-17-318 and related provisions in Title 28 and Title 39 to add a new civil cause of action for nonconsensual distribution of intimate images. It creates new statutory definitions for “distribute” and “intimate image,” sets out defenses and exceptions, authorizes damages and injunctive relief, and provides privacy protections for plaintiffs. The act applies prospectively to causes of action arising on or after July 1, 2026, and may affect individuals, alleged distributors, and online platforms or service providers that host or facilitate content.
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition. It passed the House Civil Justice Subcommittee 7-0, the House Judiciary Committee 18-0, and the House floor 81-1, indicating a strong consensus that victims of nonconsensual intimate image distribution should have a clear civil remedy. The near-unanimous votes suggest the measure was viewed as a targeted privacy and victim-protection bill rather than a controversial expansion of liability.
The most notable areas of possible disagreement are the breadth of the civil remedy and the level of damages, particularly the $150,000 liquidated damages award, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees. There could also be concern about how the bill interacts with online platforms and federal intermediary protections, although the text expressly preserves certain immunity for interactive computer services and telecommunications providers. The bill also draws lines around exceptions for law enforcement, legal proceedings, and good-faith assistance to the depicted person, which are likely intended to limit overreach and reduce disputes about legitimate disclosures.