Increased Accountability for Nonconsensual Pornography Act of 2025
Summary
HB2373, titled the Increased Accountability for Nonconsensual Pornography Act of 2025, would amend an existing federal civil-action provision in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 governing disclosure of intimate images. The bill appears aimed at strengthening remedies for victims of nonconsensual pornography by broadening the scope of covered conduct and increasing the potential damages available in civil lawsuits.
Specifically, the bill would revise the definitions and liability provisions in 15 U.S.C. 6851. It would expand the category of protected intimate-image material to include an identifiable individual engaged in sexually explicit conduct, and it would make a technical change to the definition section by inserting “competent” into the mental-state language. It would also raise the statutory damages cap in the civil action from $150,000 to $500,000, significantly increasing potential financial exposure for violators.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would amend federal law governing civil claims for nonconsensual disclosure of intimate images, increasing the remedies available to affected individuals and potentially making litigation more consequential for defendants. The change would affect the existing federal cause of action under 15 U.S.C. 6851 by expanding the types of images covered and by increasing the maximum damages award, which could influence settlement values, deterrence, and enforcement strategies in cases involving revenge porn and related privacy harms.
Sentiment
The available context suggests generally supportive intent, with the bill framed as an accountability measure for nonconsensual pornography and victim protection. There are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided material, so there is no evidence of formal opposition or amendment debate in the record supplied. The bill’s introduction and referral to the House Judiciary Committee indicate it is at an early stage of consideration.
Contention
The main likely points of contention are the scope of the expanded definition of covered intimate images and the increase in damages exposure from $150,000 to $500,000. Supporters would likely view these changes as necessary to improve remedies for victims and deter abuse, while critics could argue that the higher damages cap may increase litigation risk or that the revised language could broaden liability beyond the original statute’s intended reach. No specific objections or named opponents are included in the provided record.