Criminal Defense Lawyers

Federal Revenge Porn Charges: Non-Consensual Pornography

Last Updated on: 19th November 2025, 06:45 pm

If the FBI just contacted you about revenge porn—or you discovered your intimate images online across state lines—you’re facing federal charges that didn’t even exist until May 2025, when the Take It Down Act revolutionized how prosecutors attacks these cases. The evidence against you is comprised of digital files which prosecutors will use to secure a conviction. The government are aggressive, and they wants to make an example out of defendants who they believes violated the new federal statute. This is real serious trouble—not state misdemeanor charges with probation, but federal felony counts with mandatory minimums. These type of cases are different than anything you seen before. You need to understand what you’re facing. Many, many defendants don’t realize they’re under investigation until the FBI come to their house with a search warrant.

Federal revenge porn investigations moves fast. Very fast. Based off what happens in the first 48 hours, your entire life can change. If you hesitate. If you talk to the FBI without counsel. If you try and explain yourself to agents which show up at your door—you’re making your case worse. Irregardless of what you think happened, federal prosecutors see these charges as serious as child exploitation cases, and the sentences reflects that severity.

The 48-Hour Countdown – What Federal Law Now Requires

The Take It Down Act, signed May 19, 2025, was a game changer for revenge porn prosecutions. This wasn’t just another federal statute—it completely transformed how platforms, prosecutors, and law enforcement approach non-consensual intimate imagery. Here’s what changed. Before May 2025, revenge porn was primarily a state crime, with penalties ranging from misdemeanors to low-level felonies depending on where the offense occured. State sentences was maybe 6 months to 2 years. But the Take It Down Act created federal jurisdiction that don’t require images to cross state lines—virtually any digital posting triggers federal prosecutors now.

The law requires platforms to remove reported intimate imagery within 48 hours of notification. This 48-hour requirement, which becomes enforcable May 2026, puts platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Reddit under massive liability. The FTC can impose fines of $53,088 per violation—per image, per day. For defendants, this creates a evidence preservation paradox. Do you report images to get them removed? Or does that create a record that proves distribution? This is the kind of strategic decision you can’t make without a federal defense attorney which understands both the criminal case and the civil enforcement mechanism.

Here’s where it get complicated. The Take It Down Act has what I call “dual-path prosecution.” Prosecutors don’t need to prove both intent to harm and actual harm. They needs either. If they can show you intended to harass, intimidate, or cause emotional distress—that’s enough for conviction, irregardless of whether the victim actually suffered provable harm. Or if they can show harm occured—reputational damage, emotional distress, economic loss—they don’t need to prove you specifically intended that outcome. You might of posted images thinking it was harmless, or as part of a relationship dispute, but if the victim suffers harm, you’re liable under federal law.

The federal government are using this dual-path structure to their advantage. In cases we seen, prosecutors charge under the Take It Down Act (2 years maximum), 18 USC 2261A for cyberstalking (5 years), and sometimes 18 USC 875 for interstate threats (5 years), all based off the same conduct. They’re stacking charges. Each charge multiplies your exposure. What looks like a single act—posting images online—becomes three separate federal felonies with sentences that runs consecutive, not concurrent.

Prior to 2013, federal revenge porn cases required images to cross state lines. That old statute required proof that images was transmitted from one state to another, which made federal jurisdiction limited. But Congress amended the law in 2013, eliminating the separate-state requirement. Now, any use of interstate commerce—which means any website, any server, any platform that uses the internet—triggers federal jurisdiction. Them prosecutors don’t need to prove the victim was in a different state. They don’t need to prove you crossed state lines. If you used the internet, you used interstate commerce, and that’s federal jurisdiction.

This is why so many defendants are shocked when the FBI shows up instead of local police. You might of thought this was a local issue—maybe you and your ex both live in the same city, maybe you posted images on a local forum. Don’t matter. Federal agents has jurisdiction the moment you used any digital platform. And here’s what most defendants don’t realize: platforms like Facebook and Instagram are required to report suspected violations to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC), which then refers cases to the FBI. Your ex don’t even need to report you—the platform might do it automatically based off their content detection algorithms.

When the FBI Calls – Federal vs State Jurisdiction Triggers

If the FBI contacts you, that’s not a courtesy call—that’s a signal that you’re already deep into a federal investigation. Most defendants receives what’s called a “target letter,” which is the DOJ’s way of saying they’re considering charging you. Some defendants gets a knock on the door at 6am with a search warrant. Either way, you needs to understand: by the time FBI makes contact, they been investigating for weeks or months. They already have evidence. They already spoke to witnesses. They already reviewed your digital footprint.

Federal vs state jurisdiction matters enormously. State revenge porn charges typically carry sentences of 6 months to 2 years, often with probation options. Federal revenge porn charges start at 2 years under the Take It Down Act but can escalate to 5 years under cyberstalking statutes, or even 15 to 30 years mandatory minimum if prosecutors crossover into sextortion charges under 18 USC 2251. That’s not a typo. Fifteen to thirty years, mandatory, no discretion for the judge. This happen when prosecutors argue that you coerced or enticed the victim to produce the images in the first place.

There’s specific situations that almost always triggers federal prosecution:

• Military or federal employee involvement: If either you or the victim is military or works for the federal government, this becomes a federal case immediately. Military bases falls under federal jurisdiction, which means even a state-based offense can be prosecuted federally if it occured on base or involved military personnel. And here’s the nightmare: you could face both military justice under the UCMJ and federal civilian prosecution. Dual prosecution is legal, and it happens.
• International aspects: If images was shared with someone overseas, or if the victim is located internationally, federal prosecutors takes jurisdiction. They have treaties with many countries for evidence sharing and extradition. We seen cases where images was shared to a server in Canada, and that triggered FBI involvement because of cross-border data transfer.
• Minor involvement: If the victim was under 18 when images was created—even if they’re an adult now when images was shared—you’re facing child pornography charges, which is a completely different level of federal prosecution with mandatory minimums starting at 15 years. This is a sextortion crossover that prosecutors loves to exploit.

Circuit courts handles these cases different, which creates opportunities for defense. The 9th Circuit has been more receptive to First Amendment challenges to revenge porn laws, while the 5th Circuit has upheld broader prosecutorial authority. This matters for venue—where your case gets prosecuted can determine what defenses are available. If you posted images while traveling, or if servers are located in multiple states, there might be venue options that your attorney can leverage. Some circuits requires stricter proof of intent, others allows harm alone to support conviction.

The Charging Hierarchy – From 2 Years to Life

Understanding the charging hierarchy is critical, because prosecutors uses this strategically to pressure defendants into plea deals. Here’s how federal revenge porn charges escalates, from lowest to highest:

• Take It Down Act (2 years max): The baseline federal charge for non-consensual pornography. This statute, which went into effect May 19, 2025, criminalizes distributing intimate images without consent with intent to harm or when harm occurs. Two years might not sound terrible, but that’s just the starting point. Prosecutors rarely charges only this.
• 18 USC 2261A – Cyberstalking (5 years): If prosecutors can argue that distributing images was part of a course of conduct intended to harass or intimidate, they adds cyberstalking charges. This don’t require repeated contact—a single post of intimate images can qualify as cyberstalking if it’s intended to cause substantial emotional distress. Five years, and this charge almost always accompanies Take It Down Act violations.
• 18 USC 875 – Interstate Threats (5 years): If you sent any message threatening to post images, or if posting images was accompanied by any threatening language, prosecutors adds this charge. The threat don’t need to be explicit—courts have ruled that implied threats (“You’ll regret this” or “Everyone will see what you did”) qualifies. Another five years stacked on top.
• 18 USC 2251 – Sexual Exploitation (15-30 years MANDATORY): This is the nightmare scenario. If prosecutors argues that you coerced or enticed the victim to create the images in the first place—even in the context of a consensual relationship—they can charge sexual exploitation. This was originally designed for child pornography producers, but federal prosecutors has expanded it to adult sextortion cases. Once you’re charged under 2251, you’re looking at a mandatory minimum of 15 years, no parole, no judicial discretion. In practice, sentences under this statute often exceeds 20 years.

Real sentences illustrates the severity. In United States v. Juelz Armstead (N.D. Texas, 2024), the defendant received 245 years in federal prison for a sextortion scheme involving non-consensual pornography. Armstead coerced multiple victims to produce intimate images, then threatened to distribute them unless victims complied with additional demands. Prosecutors stacked charges: sexual exploitation, cyberstalking, interstate threats, wire fraud. Each count carried a separate sentence, and the judge ordered them to run consecutively. 245 years. The defendant will die in federal prison.

In another case, United States v. Martinez (C.D. Cal, 2023), the defendant received 12 years for distributing intimate images of an ex-girlfriend across multiple platforms. Prosecutors charged Take It Down Act violations, cyberstalking, and interstate harassment. The victim suffered documentable harm—she lost her job, experienced severe emotional distress, and had to relocate. The defense argued First Amendment protections, but the court ruled that non-consensual intimate imagery has no constitutional protection.

The point is this: federal prosecutors don’t mess around with these cases. They views revenge porn as serious as violent crimes, and sentences reflects that. If you’re facing charges, you need to understand that the initial charge is almost never the final charge. Prosecutors will add counts as they investigates further. What starts as a Take It Down Act violation becomes cyberstalking, then interstate threats, then potentially sexual exploitation if prosecutors can construct a coercion narrative. This is why early intervention with a federal defense attorney is critical—before prosecutors locks in their charging strategy.

You might think, “I didn’t coerce anyone, we was in a relationship, the images was consensual.” That don’t matter to prosecutors. Federal law focuses on distribution without consent, not how images was created. If you distributed intimate images without current consent—even if the victim consented to creating them years ago—you violated federal law. Consent to create is not consent to distribute. And if there’s any evidence that you pressured or manipulated the victim to create images—texts, emails, recorded calls—prosecutors will use that to escalate charges to sexual exploitation.

The Property Forfeiture Nightmare – They Take Everything

If the FBI executes a search warrant, they’re taking every electronic device you owns—phones, computers, tablets, hard drives, USB drives, even smart home devices like Alexa or Google Home. They wants your entire digital life. And here’s what most defendants don’t realize: civil forfeiture of these devices proceeds separately from the criminal case. Even if you’re acquitted, even if charges is dropped, getting your devices back is a nightmare.

Civil forfeiture is based off the legal fiction that the property itself committed the crime. The case isn’t United States v. You, it’s United States v. One iPhone 14 Pro. Seriously. And the burden of proof is lower—prosecutors only needs to show by a preponderance of evidence (more likely than not) that the device was used in commission of a crime. You has to prove the device was innocent, which is nearly impossible when the device was used to access platforms where images was posted.

Cloud storage complicates this further. Most people stores intimate images in iCloud, Google Drive, Dropbox, or similar services. The FBI can seize that data, but they needs separate warrants for each service, and those warrants must complies with the Stored Communications Act. In theory, this creates procedural barriers that defense attorneys can exploit. In practice, prosecutors almost always gets the warrants they needs. However, we seen cases where cloud warrants was defective—wrong account identifiers, overbroad time frames, lack of particularity—and evidence was suppressed.

Timing is critical for device seizure. If you knows you’re under investigation, there’s a narrow window to protect your devices legally. You can’t destroy evidence—that’s obstruction of justice, a separate federal felony. But you can encrypts devices, which is legal, and forces prosecutors to either break encryption (which is difficult and time-consuming) or argues that your refusal to provide passwords is obstruction (which some courts has upheld and others has rejected as a Fifth Amendment violation). This is a high-risk strategy that requires careful legal guidance.

Asset forfeiture goes beyond devices. If prosecutors can show that you profited from distributing images—for example, if images was posted on a paid subscription site, or if you extorted money from the victim—they can seize bank accounts, cars, real estate, anything purchased with proceeds from the offense. We seen cases where defendants lost their homes because prosecutors argued that mortgage payments was made with money earned through extortion schemes involving intimate images. Civil forfeiture is one of the most abusive tools in federal law enforcement, and revenge porn cases is increasingly subject to it.

Getting devices back requires filing a petition in federal court and proving that the device wasn’t used in the crime, or that forfeiture would be disproportionate to the offense. Courts almost never finds forfeiture disproportionate in revenge porn cases, because judges views these offenses as serious invasions of privacy. In cases we handled, the best outcome is often negotiating return of devices as part of a broader plea agreement, but even then, the government usually keeps forensic copies of all data indefinitely.

The Take It Down Act Revolution – What Changes in 2026

The Take It Down Act, signed May 19, 2025, don’t just creates new federal crimes—it revolutionizes how platforms, victims, and law enforcement interacts around non-consensual intimate imagery. The most significant change is the 48-hour removal requirement, which becomes enforcable May 2026. Platforms must remove reported intimate images within 48 hours or face FTC enforcement actions with fines of $53,088 per violation—and that’s per image, per day of non-compliance.

For victims, this is a huge improvement. Prior to the Take It Down Act, platforms had no legal obligation to remove revenge porn. Some platforms had policies against it, but enforcement was inconsistent. Victims often had to file dozens of reports, wait weeks or months for responses, and even then images might remain accessible through archives or mirrors. The 48-hour requirement changes that—platforms now has a legal duty to act fast, and the FTC has enforcement authority to makes sure they do.

For defendants, this creates new dynamics. Platform compliance with removal requests generates records—timestamps, IP addresses, uploader accounts—that becomes evidence in criminal prosecutions. When a platform removes images pursuant to the Take It Down Act, that removal is documented and reported to NCMEC, which shares data with the FBI. So the act of removing images creates a evidence trail that connects you to the distribution. This is the evidence preservation paradox I mentioned earlier. Victims wants images removed immediately, but removal creates records that prosecutors uses against defendants.

The FTC’s role is also new. Prior to the Take It Down Act, the FTC had no authority over revenge porn. Now, the FTC can investigate platforms, impose fines, and requires compliance reports. We expects that FTC enforcement will be aggressive initially, as the agency seeks to establishes precedent and demonstrates that the 48-hour requirement is enforcable. This means platforms will be hyper-compliant, which means images will be removed faster, which means more evidence trails for prosecutors.

International cooperation improves under the Take It Down Act. The statute authorizes the State Department to negotiate treaties with other countries for mutual enforcement of non-consensual pornography laws. Many countries already has revenge porn statutes, but enforcement across borders was difficult because of jurisdictional and evidentiary barriers. The Take It Down Act creates a framework for sharing evidence and extraditing defendants, which means if you distributed images involving someone in another country, or if you fled to another country to avoid prosecution, you’re not safe. We expects extradition treaties to be finalized with UK, Canada, Australia, and EU countries by 2027.

For defendants, the key takeaway is this: the legal landscape is changing fast. Defenses that worked in 2023 might not work in 2026. Platform compliance is increasing, evidence collection is getting more sophisticated, and international enforcement is expanding. If you’re under investigation, you needs a attorney who’s tracking these changes in real time, who understands how new enforcement mechanisms works, and who can anticipates how courts will interprets the Take It Down Act as case law develops.

What You Need to Do Right Now

Federal revenge porn charges—especially under the Take It Down Act—are evolving literally right now. The difference between 2 years and 245 years depends on decisions you makes in the next 48 hours. If the FBI contacted you. If you discovered your images online. If your ex threatened to posts images. If you’re under investigation. You needs to call a federal criminal defense attorney immediately. Not tomorrow. Not next week. Now.

Don’t talk to the FBI without counsel. Don’t try and explain yourself. Don’t think you can talk your way out of this. Every single thing you says to federal agents will be used against you. They’re not there to help you—they’re there to build a case. Irregardless of how friendly they seems, irregardless of what they promises, you needs a lawyer present for any conversation with federal law enforcement.

Don’t delete evidence. Don’t destroy devices. Don’t try and cover your tracks. That’s obstruction of justice, and it’s a separate federal felony that carries it’s own sentence. If you’re already under investigation, the FBI likely has copies of everything anyway. Destroying evidence just gives prosecutors another charge to stack on top.

Do document everything. If you has texts, emails, or other communications showing that the victim consented to distribution, or that you believed they consented, that’s critical evidence. If there’s evidence that images was shared by someone else, or that your account was compromised, that’s exculpatory. Your attorney needs every piece of evidence that supports your defense.

The law is so new, defenses are still being created. Constitutional challenges to the Take It Down Act is pending in multiple circuits. Venue strategies is evolving as we learns which judges and circuits is more receptive to defense arguments. Technical defenses around authentication and intent is being refined in real cases right now. This means if you has a attorney who’s actively litigating these cases, who’s tracking every new decision, who’s networked with other federal defense attorneys handling similar cases—you has a better chance of finding a defense strategy that works.

We’re available 24/7. Call us now at (212) 300-5196. Don’t wait for the FBI knock. Don’t wait for a target letter. Don’t wait until you’re arrested. The earlier we gets involved, the more options you has. We’re tracking every federal circuit’s interpretation, every new prosecution, every emerging defense. We knows the prosecutors, the agents, the judges. We knows how these cases is really prosecuted, not just what the statute says.

Federal revenge porn charges is not something you handles on your own. They’re not something you handles with a general practice attorney. You needs a federal criminal defense attorney who’s handled these exact cases, who understands the intersection of technology, criminal law, and constitutional rights. That’s what we does. Call now.