What This Bill Does
The CONSENT Act would create a federal civil right to sue someone who knowingly sends an intimate visual depiction to another person without that recipient’s consent, when the transmission is in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or uses interstate commerce channels. It covers both real intimate images and “intimate digital forgery,” including AI- or software-generated fake intimate depictions that are indistinguishable from authentic ones. A successful plaintiff could seek up to $1,000 in statutory damages or compensatory damages for emotional distress, plus attorney fees and injunctive relief. The bill also allows guardians to sue for minors, incompetent, or incapacitated recipients and includes exceptions for good-faith medical, educational, or law-enforcement purposes.
- Creates a federal civil lawsuit for knowingly sending intimate images without the recipient’s consent.
- Covers “intimate digital forgery,” including AI- or software-generated fake intimate depictions.
- Allows up to $1,000 in statutory damages or compensatory damages for emotional distress.
- Lets plaintiffs recover reasonable attorney fees and costs.
- Authorizes restraining orders and injunctions to stop further transmissions.
Who This Bill Affects
For a general member of the public, this bill would mainly matter if you are a recipient of a nonconsensual intimate image or a guardian acting for a minor or incapacitated person. It would give you a federal civil lawsuit option, up to $1,000 in statutory damages or emotional-distress damages, attorney fees, and the ability to seek a restraining order or injunction to stop further transmissions. It also covers AI-generated or altered intimate fakes if they are indistinguishable from a real image, which is increasingly relevant to online harassment and reputational harm.
See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysisWho Supports & Opposes This
- Survivors of image-based sexual abuse They would gain a direct federal remedy to seek damages and stop further sharing when intimate images are sent without consent. The bill also recognizes the harm caused by AI-generated fake intimate images, which can be just as damaging as authentic ones.
- Privacy and digital safety advocates They may support the bill because it creates a clear standard for nonconsensual transmission and includes attorney fees, making enforcement more realistic for ordinary people. The pseudonym option for minors also helps reduce secondary harm during litigation.
- Family members and guardians of minors or incapacitated adults The bill lets a legal guardian bring suit on behalf of someone under 18, incompetent, or incapacitated. That gives families a way to respond when the harmed person cannot safely or practically litigate on their own.
- Civil liberties and free-speech advocates They may worry that a federal civil cause of action could be applied too broadly in edge cases involving expressive or controversial content, even though the bill includes a First Amendment rule of construction. They may also be concerned about litigation chilling lawful online communication.
- Technology platforms and online intermediaries They may fear increased pressure to monitor, remove, or respond to disputed intimate content more aggressively because the bill creates a new federal remedy for transmissions in interstate commerce. That could raise compliance costs and encourage more takedown demands and lawsuits.
- Defendants accused of sharing content in medical, educational, or law-enforcement settings Even with the good-faith exception, some actors may worry about being drawn into litigation over whether their purpose was truly medical, educational, or law enforcement. They may see the bill as creating uncertainty around legitimate handling of sensitive images.
Key Implications
-
““the recipient may bring a civil action against the sender””
This creates a direct federal lawsuit for the person who received the image, rather than relying only on criminal enforcement or state-law claims. It gives victims a private enforcement tool in federal court.
-
““statutory damages of not more than $1,000””
A plaintiff can seek a capped statutory award even if proving full financial losses is difficult. The bill also separately allows compensatory damages for emotional distress, which is important in privacy and harassment cases.
-
““intimate digital forgery””
The bill reaches AI-generated or otherwise manipulated fake intimate images if they are indistinguishable from a real image to a reasonable person. That matters because the harm can come from fabricated content, not just stolen photos.
-
““good faith medical, educational, or law enforcement purpose””
This exception is meant to protect legitimate uses of intimate imagery, such as medical training or investigations. It also creates a factual question in disputes over whether a sender’s purpose was genuinely good faith.
-
““the court and each other party… shall use the plaintiff’s initials or a pseudonym””
Minors can litigate without publicly revealing their names, which reduces the risk of further embarrassment or retaliation. The protection applies in filings and transcribed proceedings.
Latest Status
June 4, 2026
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Take Action
Get more from BillBoard
Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.
Ask AI about this billData sourced from api.congress.gov.