HB2373 (‘‘Increased Accountability for Nonconsensual Pornography Act of 2025’’) amends Section 1309 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (codified at 15 U.S.C. 6851). The bill inserts the word "competent" into the consent-related language, revises the statutory definition to explicitly cover "an identifiable individual engaging in sexually explicit conduct," and raises the listed statutory damages amount in subsection (b)(3)(A)(i) from $150,000 to $500,000.
Those are surgical changes on paper but meaningful in practice: the bill tightens the statutory consent element by adding an explicit capacity qualifier, expands the category of images that can trigger a federal civil suit, and multiplies potential damages exposure. That combination alters plaintiffs’ litigation incentives, increases maximum financial risk for defendants and hosting platforms, and will change how counsel, insurers, and content moderators assess and resolve these cases.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends 15 U.S.C. 6851 by (1) inserting "competent" into the consent-related definition in subsection (a)(2), (2) revising subsection (a)(5)(A) to add an explicit category—"an identifiable individual engaging in sexually explicit conduct," and (3) increasing the statutory damages figure in subsection (b)(3)(A)(i) from $150,000 to $500,000.
Who It Affects
Survivors of intimate-image disclosures and attorneys who bring federal civil suits, alleged distributors (individual defendants), online platforms and hosting services that publish or facilitate access to such images, and insurers who underwrite liability for these risks.
Why It Matters
By combining a clarified capacity element, a broader definition of covered images, and a substantially larger damages figure, the bill changes plaintiffs’ bargaining position, raises potential losses for defendants and platforms, and will likely affect moderation policies, litigation strategy, and insurance pricing for related claims.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HB2373 modifies the federal civil cause of action created in Section 1309 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022. The bill’s textual edits are small, but they change two foundational pieces of the statute: the consent element and the set of images the law treats as actionable.
Practically, adding the word "competent" alongside an existing "conscious" qualifier makes capacity an explicit statutory element rather than just an implied factual inquiry. That shifts how plaintiffs must plead and what defendants will contest—expect early motions and discovery focused on mental state, intoxication, or other capacity-related facts.
On the definitional side, the statute’s list of covered images now expressly includes images showing "an identifiable individual engaging in sexually explicit conduct." That phrasing broadens coverage beyond certain narrow image categories and may encompass recordings where the subject is identifiable by context, clothing, tattoos, or other attributes even if facial features are partly obscured. Defense counsel and platforms will need to reassess which posts fall within the federal remedy and which rely on other statutory or state-law claims.The bill also hikes the specific damages figure in subsection (b)(3)(A)(i) from $150,000 to $500,000.
That single-number increase affects headline exposure and settlement dynamics: plaintiffs have stronger leverage to demand higher settlements, and defendants—individuals, small publishers, or platforms—face larger worst-case losses. Insurers, employers, and platforms that host user content will need to reassess underwriting, indemnity language, and moderation protocols to manage the increased financial risk.Taken together, these changes will show up outside the courtroom as well.
Platforms may tighten takedown standards or proactively filter content that could plausibly meet the new definition. Plaintiffs’ counsel may pursue federal claims more often where they previously settled for lower amounts under state law.
At the same time, the new capacity language and definitional expansion inject evidentiary and First Amendment tensions that will shape litigation contours for years after enactment.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends Section 1309 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (15 U.S.C. 6851), i.e.
the federal civil remedy for disclosure of intimate images.
It inserts the adjective "competent" into the statute’s consent-related language, making mental capacity an explicit statutory element.
It adds a new covered-category phrase: "an identifiable individual engaging in sexually explicit conduct," expanding the types of images that can trigger the civil action.
The bill increases the numeric damages figure in subsection (b)(3)(A)(i) from $150,000 to $500,000, raising maximum listed statutory exposure.
The amendments operate within the existing federal civil framework—this is a change to the civil cause of action, not a new criminal statute.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Sets the act’s name as the "Increased Accountability for Nonconsensual Pornography Act of 2025." This is a conventional short-title provision with no legal effect beyond identifying the statute.
Adds a capacity requirement to consent language
The bill inserts the word "competent" immediately after "conscious" in the statute’s consent-related paragraph. Mechanically, this elevates capacity (competence) from an implicit factual inquiry to an express statutory prerequisite. Practically, defendants are more likely to raise capacity-based defenses (intoxication, cognitive impairment, medicated states), and plaintiffs will need to plead facts showing the subject was both conscious and legally competent to consent at the relevant time.
Expands the statutory list of covered images
This amendment reconstructs the list of image categories and adds clause (iii): an "identifiable individual engaging in sexually explicit conduct." The change widens the statute’s reach to images where the person can be identified and the conduct is sexual, even if the image does not fall into earlier, narrower subcategories. The restructuring also removes a prior subclause (the bill deletes subclause (III) and reorganizes punctuation), which may eliminate or alter an earlier exception—implementers will need to compare the prior and amended text to see precisely which scenarios are newly included or excluded.
Increases the specified damages amount
The bill replaces the $150,000 figure with $500,000 in the listed damages provision. That is a straightforward numeric change but has outsized practical effects: it raises headline exposure for defendants and alters settlement economics, potentially increasing the frequency and size of pretrial settlements as plaintiffs gain leverage to demand higher compensation.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Privacy across all five countries.
Explore Privacy in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Survivors of nonconsensual intimate-image disclosure — They gain clearer statutory grounding to argue the subject lacked capacity and face a higher damages ceiling, which strengthens remedy prospects and settlement leverage.
- Plaintiffs’ attorneys — The combination of an explicit capacity element and a higher damages figure increases bargaining power and the attractiveness of bringing federal claims.
- Online-safety and victim-advocacy organizations — A broader statutory definition can be used to push platforms toward more proactive removal and safer reporting procedures, improving operational outcomes for clients they assist.
Who Bears the Cost
- Individual defendants and small publishers — Higher statutory damages substantially increase personal financial risk, making litigation and potential judgments more costly.
- Online platforms and hosting services — Broader coverage of actionable images will raise moderation, takedown, and legal-review costs, and may increase exposure for platforms that fail to remove or are found to facilitate dissemination.
- Liability insurers — The larger damages figure and expanded claim surface will pressure underwriting and premiums for policies that cover media, cyber, or personal-liability exposures.
- Courts and litigators — The explicit competency element invites contested fact discovery (medical records, toxicology, expert testimony), raising litigation complexity and docket burdens.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing stronger remedies for victims—clearer capacity rules and larger damages—against the risk of overbroad liability that chills lawful speech, swells litigation costs, and imposes heavy burdens on platforms and insurers; the statute strengthens redress at the potential cost of increased factual disputes and constitutional line-drawing.
The bill’s textual edits create several implementation and doctrinal puzzles. Making competence an express element clarifies the statute but also forces early, fact-intensive disputes about intoxication, cognitive impairment, and medical conditions; those disputes require medical and expert evidence and may prolong litigation.
The new "identifiable individual engaging in sexually explicit conduct" language broadens coverage, but its contours are uncertain: does "identifiable" require facial recognition, or is contextual identification (tattoos, location, accompanying metadata) sufficient? That ambiguity will generate early appellate battles that determine how far the federal remedy reaches.
There are cross-cutting constitutional and statutory tensions. Expanding the definition risks sweeping in content with arguable First Amendment protection (e.g., consensual erotic material republished in a newsworthy context), creating a line-drawing problem for courts.
The deletion and reorganization of prior subclauses may eliminate exceptions that previously limited liability; implementers must parse the pre- and post-amendment text to understand retained defenses. Finally, raising the damages number substantially will shift settlement dynamics and insurance considerations, but it may also incentivize more aggressive early-motion practice and jurisdictional forum-shopping as defendants attempt to limit exposure.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.