HB9155, titled the CONSENT Act, would create a federal civil cause of action for a person who knowingly transmits an intimate visual depiction to another person without the recipient’s consent, using interstate or foreign commerce or a facility of such commerce. The bill defines “consent,” “intimate visual depiction,” and “intimate digital forgery,” the latter covering AI-generated or otherwise technologically altered intimate images that are indistinguishable from authentic depictions. It also clarifies that “transmit” means sending directly to one or more individuals, not publishing generally.
The bill allows the recipient, or a legal guardian in the case of a minor, incapacitated, or incompetent recipient, to sue in federal district court. Available remedies include statutory damages up to $1,000 or compensatory damages for emotional distress, attorney’s fees and costs, and injunctive relief to stop further transmissions. The bill includes privacy protections for minors by allowing use of initials or pseudonyms in court filings and proceedings, and it carves out good-faith medical, educational, and law-enforcement transmissions. It also states that it does not alter criminal law and should not be read to limit First Amendment rights.
If enacted, the bill would add a new federal private right of action to existing state and federal remedies for nonconsensual intimate image sharing, including deepfake intimate imagery. It would affect individuals and entities that transmit such images in interstate commerce, while expressly excluding good-faith medical, educational, and law-enforcement uses. The bill would also interact with existing criminal statutes and privacy laws without displacing them, and it would create new litigation exposure in federal court for senders of nonconsensual intimate depictions.
The available context suggests the bill is generally aimed at addressing a widely recognized privacy and abuse problem, particularly the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images and AI-generated sexual deepfakes. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of opposition or support from floor or committee debate. The bill’s structure, including privacy protections for minors and explicit First Amendment and criminal-law savings clauses, suggests an effort to build broad support by narrowing the measure to clearly harmful conduct.
The main likely points of contention are the scope of the new civil liability, the treatment of AI-generated or altered intimate images, and the balance between privacy enforcement and free-speech concerns. The bill’s inclusion of “intimate digital forgery” may raise questions about proof, intent, and the line between harmful fabrication and protected expression. Another possible issue is the relatively modest statutory damages cap, which could be viewed as either a reasonable limit or insufficient deterrence. The exceptions for medical, educational, and law-enforcement purposes, and the explicit First Amendment savings clause, appear designed to address these concerns.