HB2860 creates a new article in West Virginia code establishing a civil cause of action for the unauthorized disclosure or threatened disclosure of intimate images. The bill defines key terms such as “intimate image,” “private,” “consent,” and “identifiable,” and allows a depicted individual who suffers harm to sue when another person intentionally discloses or threatens to disclose a private intimate image without consent, knowing or recklessly disregarding that lack of consent, the image’s private status, and the person’s identifiability. The bill also makes clear that prior consent to create an image, or a prior consensual disclosure, does not by itself eliminate a later claim, and that a person may still have a reasonable expectation of privacy even if the image was created in a public place.
The bill includes several exceptions to liability, including disclosures to law enforcement, for legal proceedings, for medical education or treatment, in good-faith reporting or investigation of unlawful or unwelcome conduct, matters of public concern or public interest, and disclosures reasonably intended to assist the depicted individual. It also provides a specific protection for parents, legal guardians, and custodians disclosing images of a child, subject to limitations if the disclosure is otherwise unlawful or made for sexual gratification, humiliation, degradation, or commercial gain. The bill authorizes plaintiffs to seek sealing orders to protect privacy and sets a four-year statute of limitations, with special tolling rules for minors.
HB2860 would significantly affect state civil law by creating a new statutory remedy for nonconsensual intimate image disclosure, often referred to as “revenge porn” or image-based sexual abuse. It authorizes recovery of actual damages, emotional distress damages, statutory damages up to $10,000 per defendant, disgorgement of the defendant’s monetary gain, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and injunctive relief. The bill also specifies that it should be construed consistently with federal Communications Decency Act Section 230, does not alter sovereign immunity, and is intended to promote uniformity with similar laws in other states.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is protective of privacy and strongly supportive of victims of nonconsensual image disclosure. Although there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes included, the structure and findings of the bill suggest a policy goal of giving harmed individuals a clear civil remedy while balancing free-speech, law-enforcement, and public-interest exceptions. The bill appears designed to address a recognized privacy and harassment problem rather than to create broad new liability.
The main points of potential contention are the scope of the exceptions, especially the public concern/public interest defense and the parent/guardian exception for child images, as well as how courts will interpret “private,” “identifiable,” and “reckless disregard.” Another likely issue is the interaction with Section 230 and whether the statute could reach online platforms or intermediaries, though the bill expressly says it should be construed consistently with federal law. Questions may also arise about damages, the breadth of the statute’s coverage, and how the law balances victim privacy with speech and reporting protections.
HB2860 would add a new civil remedies article to the West Virginia Code, creating a standalone cause of action for unauthorized disclosure or threatened disclosure of intimate images. It would expand available remedies in state law to include actual and emotional-distress damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs, injunctive relief, and disgorgement of profits, while also establishing privacy-protective procedures and a four-year limitations period with special rules for minors.
No committee discussion or vote record is provided, so there is no documented legislative debate to gauge. Based on the bill’s text, the measure appears to have a generally protective, victim-centered purpose, aimed at addressing nonconsensual intimate image sharing and related harassment. The bill’s built-in exceptions indicate an effort to balance privacy enforcement with law-enforcement, medical, public-interest, and parental considerations.
Likely areas of contention include the breadth of the liability standard, the meaning of “public concern or public interest,” and whether the bill could chill legitimate reporting or speech. The parent/guardian exception for child images may also draw scrutiny, as may the treatment of images created in public settings and the extent to which the statute could apply to online dissemination or intermediaries under Section 230. Damages caps, statutory damages, and the evidentiary burden for exceptions are additional likely points of debate.