Massachusetts’ Revenge Porn Law: Here Is What It Says

By Attorney Joe Serpa | Georgetown University Law Center | 30 Years Massachusetts Criminal Defense

June 2026

For years, Massachusetts was one of the last states in the country without a specific criminal statute prohibiting the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images. Victims had only limited options. They could fund a civil lawsuit themselves, they could try to bring criminal harassment charges that required a course of conduct rather than a single act, or they could invoke voyeurism statutes that applied only to images taken secretly and not to images originally taken with consent and later shared without it. That changed on September 18, 2024, when An Act to Prevent Abuse and Exploitation, Chapter 118 of the Acts of 2024, took effect.

For the specific grounds a judge can use to dismiss a case without the prosecutor’s agreement, see how criminal cases get dismissed in Massachusetts.

Nine months later, Congress passed the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, which was signed into law on May 19, 2025, creating parallel federal criminal liability for the same conduct when it is distributed through online platforms. Massachusetts defendants accused of sharing intimate images without consent now face simultaneous exposure under both state and federal law.

This post explains what both laws say, including the specific elements, the penalties, what is and is not covered, and what the defenses are. For the complete practice-area analysis, read Massachusetts Revenge Porn and Nonconsensual Intimate Image Law. For background on where ordinary contact crosses the line into a chargeable offense, see our discussion of when unwanted contact becomes harassment under 258E.

What the Massachusetts Law Criminalizes

Chapter 118 amended the criminal harassment statute, M.G.L. c. 265, § 43A, to make nonconsensual intimate image distribution a criminal offense. The Legislature did not create a standalone crime. It folded the nonconsensual distribution of intimate images into criminal harassment as a specific new form of that offense. That structural choice matters, because the remedies that attach to criminal harassment, including the 258E harassment prevention order, are available to victims of nonconsensual image distribution. It also means that any prosecution has to respect the First Amendment limits that apply whenever the government punishes the distribution of images and expression.

The Commonwealth must prove several elements to convict. First, the defendant knowingly distributed visual material. Second, that material depicts a person who is nude, partially nude, or engaged in sexual conduct. Third, the depicted person is identifiable, meaning recognizable either from the material itself or from information distributed with it. Fourth, that person did not consent to the distribution. Fifth, and this is the element most often misunderstood, the defendant acted either with the intent to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten, coerce, or cause substantial emotional distress, or with reckless disregard both for the likelihood of that harm and for the depicted person’s reasonable expectation that the material would remain private. The statute does not require the Commonwealth to prove that the distribution caused harm. It requires proof of that culpable mental state.

The Most Important Provision: Consent to Creation Is Not Consent to Distribution

The single most significant provision in Chapter 118 is its rule that consent to the creation of visual material does not constitute consent to the distribution of that material. That sentence addresses the most common factual scenario in intimate image abuse cases, which is an image taken during a consensual relationship and shared without consent after a breakup. Before Chapter 118, this scenario fell into a legal gap. The images were not taken secretly, so the voyeurism statute did not apply, and there was typically no course of criminal conduct, so criminal harassment was difficult to charge. Chapter 118 closes that gap entirely.

AI-Generated Images and Deepfakes Are Covered

Chapter 118 applies not just to authentic photographs and videos but to AI-generated deepfakes. The statute reaches material produced by digitization, which it defines as the creation or alteration of visual material in a manner that would falsely appear to a reasonable person to be an authentic representation. A person who uses AI software to place a real person’s face onto an explicit image and then distributes it without consent has committed a criminal offense, even if that person’s actual body was never photographed. This language closes a specific enforcement gap in Massachusetts law. Earlier statutes required that the image depict an actual person in an actual state of nudity, and defendants argued that AI-generated images fell outside that requirement. The digitization definition removes that argument.

Penalties

A first offense is punishable by up to 2.5 years in a House of Correction, a fine of up to $10,000, or both. A second or subsequent offense is punishable by up to 2.5 years in a house of correction or by up to 10 years in state prison, a fine of up to $15,000, or both. That distinction carries real weight. Because a first offense carries no state prison exposure, it is a misdemeanor. A second or subsequent offense does carry state prison exposure, which makes it a felony. The felony or misdemeanor character of the charge drives the sealing waiting period, which runs three years for a misdemeanor and seven years for a felony, measured from the later of the disposition or release from custody. It also shapes the immigration analysis and the collateral consequences discussed below. A continuance without a finding and a clerk-magistrate hearing both remain available tools in cases that begin with a summons rather than a warrantless arrest.

The Educational Diversion Pathway for Minors

The same act treated minors very differently from adults. Rather than exposing a teenager who forwards an explicit image to a felony record and possible sex offender consequences, Chapter 118 created an educational diversion pathway. It added M.G.L. c. 119, § 54B, which directs qualifying juveniles into a diversion and education program developed by the Attorney General’s office, and it built parallel protections into chapter 272 so that a minor’s case can be diverted, sealed, or expunged instead of prosecuted as a serious felony. The Legislature drew a deliberate line between adults who weaponize intimate images and minors who make the kind of impulsive mistake the education program is designed to address. A minor accused of sharing an explicit image should never be treated as an adult felon, and counsel should insist on the diversion pathway the statute provides.

The 209A Coercive Control Amendment

Chapter 118 also amended M.G.L. c. 209A, § 1 to add coercive control, which includes the threat to distribute intimate images, as a form of abuse for which a 209A abuse prevention order can be sought. A person who threatens a domestic partner with the release of intimate images, for example by promising to post the partner’s photos unless the partner complies with a demand, can now be the subject of a 209A order based on the threat alone, before any distribution occurs. The same act also extended the statute of limitations for certain domestic violence offenses from six years to fifteen years, bringing them in line with the limitations period that already applied to rape and sex trafficking.

The Federal TAKE IT DOWN Act: Signed May 19, 2025

The Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on Websites and Networks Act, known as the TAKE IT DOWN Act, creates federal criminal liability for the same conduct that Chapter 118 addresses at the state level. It also adds a platform takedown obligation that has no parallel in Massachusetts law.

Federal Criminal Penalties

The TAKE IT DOWN Act criminalizes the knowing publication, through an interactive computer service, of an intimate visual depiction of an identifiable adult without consent, done with intent to cause harm or in a way that causes harm. Publication of that kind carries up to two years of imprisonment. Publication of images of a minor carries up to three years. AI-generated deepfakes carry the same penalties as authentic images. Threats to publish are also a federal crime, and a person who threatens to release images unless the victim complies with demands faces up to 18 months for a digital forgery and up to two years for an authentic image. The criminal provisions took effect immediately when the President signed the Act on May 19, 2025. The first federal conviction under the TAKE IT DOWN Act came in April 2026 in an Ohio case involving AI-generated images of both adults and children from the defendant’s own community.

The 48-Hour Platform Takedown Obligation

The TAKE IT DOWN Act requires all covered platforms, whether they are social media sites, websites, or apps that host user-generated content, to establish a process for victims to request removal of nonconsensual intimate images. Platforms must remove reported images within 48 hours of receiving a valid request and must delete all copies. The compliance deadline for platforms was May 19, 2026. The Federal Trade Commission enforces the takedown obligation, and platform non-compliance is treated as an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the FTC Act.

This deadline has a defense dimension as well. Once a platform receives a valid takedown request, the images must come down. Defense counsel must therefore move immediately to preserve evidence, using screenshots, platform preservation letters, or subpoenas, before the images are removed pursuant to a victim’s takedown request. Evidence preserved before removal is not affected by the platform’s later compliance with the takedown obligation.

The Double Exposure Problem

A Massachusetts defendant who shares a former partner’s intimate images on Instagram, Reddit, or any other social media platform now faces potential prosecution under both Chapter 118 (M.G.L. c. 265, § 43A) and the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act. These are independent offenses with independent penalties. A defendant convicted of both can face consecutive sentences under state and federal law. Defense counsel must assess exposure under both statutes from the outset and coordinate the response to any investigation by both Massachusetts law enforcement and federal investigators.

What the Law Does Not Cover and Why It Matters

Conduct Before September 18, 2024 Is Not Covered

Chapter 118 does not apply retroactively. Conduct that occurred before September 18, 2024, meaning images distributed before the statute’s effective date, cannot be prosecuted under Chapter 118. This is a complete statutory defense for any defendant whose alleged distribution predates the statute. The pre-September 18, 2024 conduct gap is a live defense in cases where the alleged distribution straddles the effective date, and defense counsel should examine the specific dates of distribution carefully in every case.

Images of the Defendant Themselves

The statute applies to the distribution of images of another person without their consent. A person who distributes intimate images of themselves is not covered. This distinction is relevant in cases where both parties to a former relationship distributed images of each other and only one is being prosecuted. The selective prosecution argument may be available where the circumstances suggest unequal enforcement.

The Identifiability Requirement

The statute requires that the depicted person be identifiable, whether from the visual material itself or from information distributed along with it. An image that does not show the person’s face, that contains no identifying characteristics, and that is shared without any accompanying identifying information may not satisfy this element. This is a genuine defense in appropriate cases, and it requires close factual analysis of the specific images and the specific manner of distribution.

The Most Important Defenses

The Attribution Defense: Who Distributed the Images

The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the defendant who distributed the images, not someone else who had access to the defendant’s device, account, or network. Shared devices, compromised accounts, and hacking are all genuine alternative explanations that defense counsel explores. The forensic analysis of who distributed the images, which examines account access logs, device metadata, IP address records, and the specific software used, is the foundation of the attribution defense.

Any search warrant for the defendant’s phone or online accounts is subject to the Fourth Amendment particularity requirements of Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014). A warrant that authorizes a general search of all device contents is constitutionally deficient. Defense counsel challenges overbroad digital warrants through a motion to suppress, and our discussion of digital search warrants in Massachusetts explains how those challenges work.

The Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, the Most Protective Outcome

Most nonconsensual intimate image cases do not arise from a warrantless arrest. They arise from a complaint filed weeks after the alleged distribution. In these cases, a clerk-magistrate hearing under M.G.L. c. 218, § 35A is available. A successful clerk-magistrate hearing denial means no arraignment, no public CORI entry, and no formal criminal charge. For licensed professionals whose licensing boards are triggered by the arraignment CORI entry alone, and for university students whose Title IX proceedings are initiated by the formal charge, the clerk-magistrate hearing denial is the most important available outcome. For the full procedure, read our practitioner’s guide to Massachusetts clerk-magistrate hearings. Skipping that hearing gives the defense a motion to dismiss, though the dismissal is without prejudice under Cabrera v. Commonwealth (SJC 2025); see our page on how Massachusetts criminal cases get dismissed.

No Intent to Harm and No Reckless Disregard

The offense is not complete unless the Commonwealth proves the required mental state. The defendant must have acted with the intent to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten, coerce, or cause substantial emotional distress, or with reckless disregard both for the likelihood of that harm and for the depicted person’s reasonable expectation that the material would remain private. Where the distribution was inadvertent, where the defendant reasonably believed the depicted person had consented or no longer expected privacy, or where the surrounding facts undercut any intent to harm, the mental-state element can fail. This is a genuine defense, and defense counsel examines the defendant’s actual knowledge, purpose, and the full context of the distribution in every case.

Who Faces the Greatest Collateral Risk From a Chapter 118 Charge

Licensed Professionals

A Chapter 118 charge under M.G.L. c. 265, § 43A creates a CORI entry at arraignment that triggers mandatory licensing board disclosure for most Massachusetts licensed professions. BORIM (physicians), the Board of Bar Overseers (attorneys), and FINRA (financial advisors) all treat criminal charges involving sexual misconduct or dishonesty as reportable disciplinary events from the moment of arraignment, well before any conviction. The clerk-magistrate hearing denial, which prevents arraignment, is the most important protection for any licensed professional facing a Chapter 118 charge.

University Students

A Chapter 118 charge that reaches arraignment triggers simultaneous Title IX proceedings at virtually every Boston-area university. The campus proceeding operates under the preponderance of the evidence standard, and it can result in suspension or expulsion before the criminal case is resolved. Student nonconsensual image cases appear most frequently in Cambridge District Court for Harvard and MIT, BMC Central and Brighton for BU, Northeastern, Suffolk, and Emerson, Newton District Court for BC, Somerville District Court for Tufts, and Waltham District Court for Brandeis and Bentley. Any student facing this kind of charge should read our Massachusetts student criminal defense FAQ and act before the arraignment fixes a public record.

Non-Citizens

A Chapter 118 conviction under M.G.L. c. 265, § 43A may constitute a crime of moral turpitude (CIMT) for federal immigration purposes, rendering a non-citizen inadmissible or deportable. A CWOF on a Chapter 118 charge constitutes a federal immigration conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A). Any non-citizen facing a Chapter 118 charge must have the immigration consequences of all proposed dispositions assessed before acceptance. Our overview of the immigration consequences of Massachusetts criminal charges explains the analysis in more detail.

Key Takeaways

• Chapter 118, Acts of 2024 (effective September 18, 2024) is the first specific Massachusetts criminal statute targeting nonconsensual intimate image distribution. It is charged under M.G.L. c. 265, § 43A as a form of criminal harassment
• A first offense is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 2.5 years in a house of correction, while a second or subsequent offense is punishable by up to 10 years in state prison and is therefore a felony
• Consent to create intimate images does not constitute consent to distribute them, which is the most important provision in the statute and the one that closes the pre-existing legal gap for images taken consensually and distributed without consent
• The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, signed May 19, 2025, creates parallel federal criminal liability for the same conduct distributed through online platforms, with up to two years of imprisonment for offenses involving adults and up to three years for minors. A Massachusetts defendant faces exposure under both laws simultaneously
• AI-generated deepfakes are covered by both Massachusetts and federal law
• Chapter 118 does not apply retroactively, so conduct before September 18, 2024 cannot be prosecuted under the new statute
• The clerk-magistrate hearing denial, available in most cases where the defendant was not arrested at the scene, is the most protective outcome, because it prevents any CORI entry and eliminates the formal charge that triggers licensing board and university disciplinary proceedings
• The attribution defense, which proves who distributed the images, is the foundation of the criminal defense in most cases, and any digital search warrant must comply with Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014)

Serpa Law Office defends people accused of nonconsensual intimate image and criminal harassment offenses in courts across eastern Massachusetts. Contact Serpa Law Office at 617.936.0201 for a confidential consultation. The Boston office is at 20 Park Plaza #400A, and the Quincy office is at 500 Victory Rd., Suite 400A. The office is available 24 hours a day.

Related Serpa Law Office Resources: Massachusetts Revenge Porn and Nonconsensual Intimate Image Law, Massachusetts 258E Harassment Prevention Orders, Digital Search Warrants in Massachusetts, How Massachusetts Courts Authenticate Deepfakes and AI Evidence in 2026, Your Fifth Amendment Right to Refuse a Passcode in Massachusetts, and Sexual Assault and Rape Defense in Massachusetts.