Massachusetts Finally Has a Revenge Porn Law — Here Is What It Actually Says

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

June 2026

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

Nine months later, President Trump signed the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act into law on May 19, 2025, creating parallel federal criminal liability for the same conduct 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 actually say — the specific elements, the penalties, what is and is not covered, and what the defenses are. For the complete legal analysis see: Massachusetts Revenge Porn and Nonconsensual Intimate Image Law — Chapter 118, Acts of 2024 and the Federal TAKE IT DOWN Act.

What the Massachusetts Law Actually Criminalizes

Chapter 118 amends the criminal harassment statute, M.G.L. c. 265, § 43A, to make nonconsensual intimate image distribution a criminal offense. The statute does not create a standalone crime — it makes the nonconsensual distribution of intimate images a specific form of criminal harassment. This matters because it means the remedies available for criminal harassment — including the 258E harassment prevention order — are expressly available to victims of nonconsensual image distribution.

The elements of the offense are: (1) knowing distribution of visual material; (2) depicting a person who is nude, partially nude, or engaged in sexual conduct; (3) who is readily identifiable; (4) who did not consent to the distribution; and (5) where the distribution causes physical harm, economic harm, or substantial emotional distress.

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

The single most significant provision in Chapter 118 is this: consent to the creation of visual material does not constitute consent to the distribution of that material. This sentence addresses the most common factual scenario in intimate image abuse cases — images 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 — images that realistically depict a real identifiable person in a nude or sexual context even if that person’s actual body was never photographed. A person who uses AI software to impose a real person’s face on an explicit image and distributes it without that person’s consent has committed a criminal offense under Chapter 118. This provision addresses a specific enforcement gap that existed in Massachusetts law before the Act — prior statutes required that the image be of an actual person in an actual state of nudity, which AI-generated images were argued not to satisfy.

Penalties

First offense: up to 2.5 years in a House of Correction and/or a fine of up to $10,000. Second or subsequent offense: up to 2.5 years and/or a fine of up to $15,000. The offense is a misdemeanor, not a felony — which affects the sealing waiting period (three years from dismissal or conviction), the CWOF availability, and the clerk-magistrate hearing availability for cases arising from a summons rather than a warrantless arrest.

The 209A Coercive Control Amendment

Chapter 118 also amended M.G.L. c. 209A, § 1 to add coercive control — including the threat to distribute intimate images — as a form of abuse for which a 209A abuse prevention order can be sought. This means that a person who threatens a domestic partner with the release of intimate images (“I will post your photos unless you…”) can be the subject of a 209A order based on the threat alone, before any distribution occurs. The coercive control amendment also extended the statute of limitations for certain domestic violence offenses from six years to fifteen years.

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 — the TAKE IT DOWN Act — was signed by President Trump on May 19, 2025. It creates federal criminal liability for the same conduct that Chapter 118 addresses at the state level, and 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 intimate visual depictions of adults without consent, with intent to harm or that causes harm: up to two years imprisonment. For minors: up to three years. For AI-generated deepfakes: same penalties. For threats to publish — threatening to release images unless the victim complies with demands — up to 18 months for digital forgeries, up to two years for authentic images. The criminal provisions took effect immediately upon signing on May 19, 2025. The first federal conviction under the TAKE IT DOWN Act was issued in April 2026 in an Ohio case involving AI-generated images of neighborhood adults and children.

The 48-Hour Platform Takedown Obligation

The TAKE IT DOWN Act requires all covered platforms — social media sites, websites, and apps hosting 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 delete all copies. The compliance deadline for platforms was May 19, 2026. The FTC enforces the takedown obligation — platform non-compliance is treated as an unfair or deceptive trade practice under the FTC Act.

For defendants: once a platform receives a valid takedown request, the images must be removed. Defense counsel must move immediately to preserve evidence — screenshots, platform preservation letters, and subpoenas — before images are removed pursuant to a victim’s takedown request. Evidence preserved before removal is not affected by the platform’s 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 faces 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 — 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 Readily Identifiable Requirement

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

The Most Important Defenses

The Attribution Defense: Who Actually 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 — examining 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. See: Digital Search Warrants in Massachusetts.

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. See: A Practitioner’s Guide to Massachusetts Clerk-Magistrate Hearings.

No Causation of Harm

The statute requires that the distribution cause physical harm, economic harm, or substantial emotional distress. Where the distribution was extremely limited in scope, reached only a small audience, was quickly removed before widespread viewing, or where the evidence of actual harm to the depicted person is thin, the causation element may not be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Defense counsel examines the actual scope and duration of distribution carefully 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 — 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 can result in suspension or expulsion before the criminal case is resolved. Courts where student nonconsensual image cases most frequently appear: Cambridge District Court (Harvard, MIT), BMC Central and Brighton (BU, Northeastern, Suffolk, Emerson), Newton District Court (BC), Somerville District Court (Tufts), Waltham District Court (Brandeis, Bentley).

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. See: Immigration Consequences of Massachusetts Criminal Charges.

Key Takeaways

• Chapter 118, Acts of 2024 (effective September 18, 2024) is Massachusetts’s first specific criminal statute targeting nonconsensual intimate image distribution. It is charged under M.G.L. c. 265, § 43A as a form of criminal harassment
• Consent to create intimate images does not constitute consent to distribute them — 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 — up to two years for offenses involving adults, up to three years for minors — for the same conduct distributed through online platforms. 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 — 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, preventing any CORI entry and eliminating the formal charge that triggers licensing board and university disciplinary proceedings
• The attribution defense — proving who actually distributed the images — is the foundation of the criminal defense in most cases. Digital search warrants must comply with Riley v. California (573 U.S. 373, 2014)

Contact Serpa Law Office at 617.936.0201 for a free confidential consultation. Boston office: 20 Park Plaza #400A. Quincy office: 500 Victory Rd., Suite 400A. Available 24 hours a day.

See also: Massachusetts Revenge Porn and Nonconsensual Intimate Image Law — Full Practice Area Analysis, 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.

SUGGESTED SLUG:

/boston-criminal-law-updates/massachusetts-revenge-porn-law-chapter-118-take-it-down-act/

SEO TITLE:

META DESCRIPTION:

Massachusetts finally has a revenge porn law — Chapter 118, Acts of 2024, effective September 18, 2024, and the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act signed May 19, 2025. What each law covers, penalties, defenses, and consequences for students and professionals. Serpa Law Office: 617.936.0201.