SB 146, the TAKE IT DOWN Act, creates a federal criminal offense for knowingly publishing nonconsensual intimate visual depictions through an interactive computer service. It covers both authentic intimate images and “digital forgeries” created or altered using software, machine learning, artificial intelligence, or other technological means, and it applies different standards for adults and minors. For adults, the law requires privacy-related circumstances and harm or intent to cause harm; for minors, it prohibits publication with intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or sexually arouse or gratify. The bill also reaches threats to publish such material when used for intimidation, coercion, extortion, or mental distress.
The bill further requires covered online platforms to create a notice-and-removal process for victims. Platforms must provide a clear public notice of the process, accept removal requests from identifiable individuals or authorized representatives, and remove reported intimate images within 48 hours, while also making reasonable efforts to remove known identical copies. The Federal Trade Commission is given enforcement authority, and a failure to reasonably comply is treated as an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the FTC Act. The bill defines “covered platform” broadly to include public websites, online services, online applications, and mobile applications that primarily host user-generated content, while excluding broadband providers, email, and certain preselected-content services.
The bill changes federal law by amending Section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 and adding new criminal penalties, forfeiture, restitution, and defenses related to nonconsensual intimate imagery. It also preserves other applicable laws, including child pornography laws, and includes a severability clause so that if one part is invalidated, the rest remains in effect. In practical terms, the measure imposes new compliance obligations on social media platforms and other covered services, while giving victims a faster federal takedown mechanism and a new route for federal enforcement.
Overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly favorable and bipartisan. The House passed it overwhelmingly by a 408-2 vote, and the legislative history shows it was considered and passed in both chambers before being signed into law. The broad support suggests lawmakers viewed the measure as a response to harms caused by revenge porn and AI-generated deepfakes, especially where victims face psychological, reputational, or financial damage.
The main points of contention are not reflected in committee transcripts here, but the structure of the bill suggests likely concerns about platform liability, the speed of takedown obligations, and the possibility of over-removal of lawful content. The bill addresses some of those concerns by including exceptions for law enforcement, good-faith reporting, medical and educational uses, legal proceedings, and self-publication, as well as a liability limitation for good-faith removals. Even so, the balance between victim protection, free expression, and platform compliance appears to be the central policy tension.
The bill amends the Communications Act to add a new federal offense for the intentional disclosure of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions and digital forgeries, with criminal penalties, forfeiture, and restitution. It also creates a new federal notice-and-takedown regime for covered online platforms, enforced by the FTC as an unfair or deceptive practice, thereby imposing new operational and compliance duties on websites and apps that host user-generated content or distribute such material.
The bill appears to have enjoyed strong bipartisan support and a broadly protective, victim-centered sentiment. The 408-2 House vote indicates overwhelming agreement that nonconsensual intimate imagery and AI-generated sexual deepfakes warrant federal intervention, with little visible opposition in the available record.
The likely areas of contention are the scope of platform obligations, the 48-hour removal deadline, and the risk of overbroad takedowns affecting lawful speech, journalism, or other legitimate uses. The bill responds to those concerns with exceptions for law enforcement, legal, medical, scientific, educational, and self-publication contexts, plus a good-faith liability shield for platforms, but the tension between rapid victim relief and content moderation overreach remains the central issue.