AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 28 and Title 39, Chapter 17, relative to unlawful exposure.
SB2041 expands Tennessee’s unlawful exposure law to create an explicit civil cause of action for people depicted in intimate images that are distributed without valid consent. The bill defines when consent is valid, clarifies that consent to create an image does not mean consent to distribute it, and allows a plaintiff to seek the defendant’s monetary gains, actual damages including emotional distress, or liquidated damages of $150,000, along with punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation costs.
The bill also authorizes equitable relief such as temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and permanent injunctions to stop further display or distribution of the image. It permits courts to use pseudonyms and in camera proceedings to protect plaintiff confidentiality. The measure includes exceptions for good-faith disclosures to law enforcement, disclosures made as part of legal proceedings, and distributions reasonably intended to assist the depicted person. It also states that internet and telecommunications providers are not liable for good-faith efforts to restrict access or for content posted by others.
In addition to the civil remedy, the bill adds definitions for “distribute” and “intimate image” to the criminal statute, covering photographs, videos, and social media broadcasts depicting intimate parts or sexually explicit conduct of an identifiable person. The act applies only to causes of action arising on or after July 1, 2026, and amends Tennessee Code Annotated Title 28 and Title 39, Chapter 17.
The general sentiment reflected in the available history is strongly supportive and noncontroversial. The Senate Judiciary Committee recommended passage unanimously, and the floor motion to adopt also passed 32-0, indicating broad bipartisan agreement. No committee transcript objections are provided, and the voting record suggests the bill was viewed as a privacy and victim-protection measure.
The main points of contention, based on the text itself, are likely to center on the scope of liability, the high liquidated damages amount, and the balance between victim remedies and platform/provider protections. The bill attempts to address those concerns by limiting liability for interactive computer services and by carving out good-faith law-enforcement, legal-proceeding, and assistance-related disclosures, but the breadth of the civil remedy and injunction authority could still be the focus of debate in other contexts.
SB2041 amends Tennessee’s criminal unlawful exposure statute and adds a new civil enforcement mechanism for nonconsensual distribution of intimate images. It creates new statutory definitions, establishes damages and injunctive remedies, and sets confidentiality procedures for plaintiffs, while also preserving certain good-faith exceptions and immunity protections for online and telecommunications providers. The bill applies prospectively to claims arising on or after July 1, 2026, and affects both privacy-related civil litigation and the enforcement framework for intimate-image distribution under Tennessee law.
The available legislative history shows overwhelmingly favorable sentiment. The Senate Judiciary Committee recommended passage by a 9-0 vote, and the floor motion to adopt passed 32-0. With no recorded opposition in the provided materials, the bill appears to have been treated as a broadly supported privacy and anti-exploitation measure.
No explicit opposition appears in the provided transcripts or votes, but the bill’s likely areas of concern are the size of the statutory liquidated damages award, the expansion of civil liability for image distribution, and the interaction with internet platform moderation and intermediary protections. The bill addresses some of those issues by shielding providers from liability for good-faith content restriction efforts and by exempting certain law-enforcement, legal, and assistance-related disclosures. Any debate would likely involve privacy advocates favoring stronger remedies versus free-speech, media, or technology stakeholders concerned about overbreadth and compliance burdens.