Revenge Porn Law in Massachusetts: Charges for Sharing Nude Photos or Videos Without Consent (M.G.L. c. 265, § 43A(b))

A person accused of sharing, posting, or sending another person’s nude photos or sex videos without consent can be charged with a crime in Massachusetts. People call the offense revenge porn or the nonconsensual distribution of intimate images. Massachusetts has prosecuted revenge porn as criminal harassment under M.G.L. c. 265, § 43A(b), since September 18, 2024. The police can apply for a complaint when a person posts the images on social media, sends them in a text message or group chat, or leaks them online. The statute also applies to deepfakes and other images created or altered by artificial intelligence.

A judge may sentence a person convicted of a first revenge porn offense to up to two and one half years in a house of correction, a fine of up to $10,000, or both. A first offense is a misdemeanor. A second or subsequent offense is a felony. A judge may sentence a person convicted of a second or subsequent offense to up to ten years in state prison.

Publishing revenge porn online is also a federal crime under the TAKE IT DOWN Act. A person accused in Massachusetts can face a state prosecution and a federal prosecution for the same conduct.

This page explains what the Commonwealth must prove, the penalties, the defenses, and the school, professional license, and immigration consequences of a revenge porn charge. Attorney Joe Serpa defends revenge porn cases across Greater Boston. The Massachusetts Revenge Porn and Nonconsensual Intimate Image FAQ answers common questions, including juvenile cases, sexting between minors, and the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act.

Defense counsel can challenge the authentication of the images and the attribution of the distribution to the defendant. Contact Serpa Law Office at 617.936.0201 for an immediate consultation.

Secretly Recorded Nude Photos and Videos Under M.G.L. c. 272, § 105: Dissemination Must Be to a Third Party

Sending a secretly recorded nude photo or video only to the person shown in it is not dissemination under M.G.L. c. 272, § 105(c). In Commonwealth v. Goncalves, No. SJC-13880 (Mass. Oct. 6, 2026), the Supreme Judicial Court held that dissemination requires sending the photo or video to at least one third party, meaning someone other than the person shown. The court upheld the defendant’s conviction under § 105(b) for secretly recording a nude person, because the jury could find an intent to record in secret even though the camera was visible. The police can apply for a complaint under § 43A(b) as well as under § 105 for a secretly recorded image sent on or after September 18, 2024. Section 43A(b) defines “distribute” to include “give” and “transfer.” The Supreme Judicial Court did not decide whether sending an image only to the person shown is distribution under § 43A(b). The firm’s page on hidden camera and secret recording charges explains the elements, the penalties, and the defenses under § 105.

What Counts as Revenge Porn Under Massachusetts Law

Under Massachusetts law, revenge porn is the knowing distribution of a nude, partially nude, or sexual photo or video of another person without that person’s consent. The Act to Prevent Abuse and Exploitation added the offense to the criminal harassment statute, M.G.L. c. 265, § 43A. The police can apply for a complaint against any person who knowingly distributes the image, including a person who forwards or reposts an image that someone else took or sent. The Commonwealth must prove the three elements below and one of the two states of mind explained under Intent to Harm or Reckless Disregard.

• The person shown is identifiable from the image itself or from information offered with the image, or the person who distributed the image identified the person shown
• The person depicted did not consent to the distribution of the visual material
• The distribution caused the person shown physical or economic injury or substantial emotional distress

Consent to Taking the Photo Is Not Consent to Sharing It

A person who agreed to be photographed or recorded has not agreed to have the photo or video shared. Under § 43A(b)(3), consent to the creation of visual material is not consent to the distribution of that material. The consent rule applies to a common set of facts in revenge porn cases. A person takes or sends nude photos during a relationship. After a breakup, the other person shares the photos without consent. The fact that the photos were taken or sent with consent is not a defense to sharing them without consent.

Photos, Videos, Screenshots, and AI-Generated Images

“Visual material” under M.G.L. c. 265, § 43A and Chapter 118 includes photographs, videos, films, digital images, and any other visual recordings, whether in physical or electronic format. The statute applies to each of the following kinds of images.

• Authentic photographs and videos taken of a real person
• Screenshots of video calls or livestreams
• Digital images created or altered by artificial intelligence, including AI-generated deepfakes that depict a real identifiable person in a nude, partially nude, or sexual context, even if the person’s body was never photographed
• Images sent privately between consenting individuals and later shared without consent, which is a common scenario in intimate image abuse cases

Identifying the Person in the Image

The person shown must be identifiable. Section 43A(b) defines identifiable as recognizable from the visual material itself or from information offered in connection with the visual material. The statute also applies when the person who distributed the image identified the person shown. A person can be identifiable from a face, a tattoo, a distinctive feature, or a caption naming the person. A real person whose face appears in a deepfake on another body can be identifiable. A person shown in an image shared with the person’s name can be identifiable even when the face is hidden.

Intent to Harm or Reckless Disregard

Section 43A(b) requires proof that the defendant knowingly distributed the visual material, and then requires one of two further states of mind. The first state of mind is the intent to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten, coerce, or cause substantial emotional distress. The second state of mind is reckless disregard. The Commonwealth may proceed on either state of mind.

To rely on reckless disregard, the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant acted in reckless disregard of three things. The first thing is the likelihood that the depicted person will suffer harm, harassment, intimidation, threat, coercion, or substantial emotional distress. The second thing is the depicted person’s lack of consent to the distribution. The third thing is the depicted person’s reasonable expectation that the material would remain private. G.L. c. 265, § 43A(b)(2)(ii). The Commonwealth cannot rely on reckless disregard without proof that the defendant recklessly disregarded all three things.

The statute separately requires that the distribution cause physical or economic injury or substantial emotional distress to the depicted person. Evidence of the defendant’s state of mind does not prove the injury or distress. The Commonwealth has not proved the element of injury or distress when the evidence shows only that the defendant forwarded an image, with no evidence of resulting injury or distress.

Images That Show Only the Person Who Shared Them

The offense is defined by the distribution of visual material depicting another person. The statute does not apply to a person who distributes intimate images of only themselves. Sometimes both people in a former relationship have distributed images, but only one of them faces a criminal complaint. Distributing images that show only the person charged is not a crime under the statute. Distributing an image that also shows the complainant can be a crime under the statute, because that image depicts another person.

Exceptions in the Massachusetts Revenge Porn Law

Section 43A(b)(6) excludes six kinds of images and distributions from the offense.

• Nudity, partial nudity, or sexual conduct that was voluntary or consensual and took place in a commercial setting or in a place where the person had no reasonable expectation of privacy
• A distribution made in the public interest, including a report of unlawful conduct
• The lawful and common practices of law enforcement, criminal reporting, corrections, legal proceedings, and medical treatment, including telemedicine
• A distribution of visual material that is a matter of public concern
• A website, app, or social media platform, for content provided solely by another person
• An internet or telecommunications service provider, for content provided solely by another person

Revenge Porn Penalties in Massachusetts: Jail Time, Fines, and Felony Charges

A first revenge porn offense under M.G.L. c. 265, § 43A(b) is a misdemeanor. A second or subsequent offense is a felony. The Commonwealth prosecutes revenge porn as a form of criminal harassment under § 43A.

• A judge may sentence a person convicted of a first offense to up to 2.5 years in a House of Correction, a fine of up to $10,000, or both
• A judge may sentence a person convicted of a second or subsequent offense to up to 2.5 years in a House of Correction or up to 10 years in state prison, a fine of up to $15,000, or both. A judge may impose the sentence for a second or subsequent offense on a person convicted of a § 43A offense committed after a stalking conviction under M.G.L. c. 265, § 43
• Chapter 118 also raised the maximum fine for criminal harassment generally, from $1,000 to $5,000 for a first offense and to $15,000 for a second or subsequent offense

A victim may also petition for a 258E harassment prevention order against a person who violates the nonconsensual intimate image statute. M.G.L. c. 258E, § 1 defines harassment to include a single act that violates M.G.L. c. 265, § 43A. The criminal case and the 258E harassment prevention order proceeding can be pending at the same time and can be based on the same conduct. A statement the defendant makes in either proceeding can be used against the defendant in the other proceeding.

Statute of Limitations for Revenge Porn Charges

The statute of limitations for a revenge porn charge under M.G.L. c. 265, § 43A(b) is six years. Under M.G.L. c. 277, § 63, the general six-year period applies to every crime that the section does not list for a longer period.

Section 63 sets a ten-year period for assault and battery on a family or household member under M.G.L. c. 265, § 13M. Section 63 sets a fifteen-year period for rape and assault with intent to commit rape under M.G.L. c. 265, §§ 22 and 24, and for trafficking for sexual servitude under section 50(a). Section 63 does not list criminal harassment under § 43A for any longer period. The Commonwealth can file a § 43A(b) charge up to six years after the alleged distribution.

Threatening to Post Nude Photos: Coercive Control and 209A Restraining Orders

A judge can issue a 209A restraining order (abuse prevention order) against a current or former partner who threatens to post or share the plaintiff’s nude photos, even when no photo is ever shared. Chapter 118 amended the definition of “abuse” under M.G.L. c. 209A, § 1 to include coercive control. Coercive control is a pattern of behavior, or in limited cases a single act, intended to threaten, intimidate, harass, isolate, control, coerce, or compel compliance of a family or household member.

The pattern or act must cause the family or household member to reasonably fear physical harm or to have a reduced sense of physical safety or autonomy. The definition of coercive control in M.G.L. c. 209A, § 1 expressly includes the threat to publish sexually explicit images of a family or household member. A pattern of threats to post a former partner’s photographs unless the former partner complies with demands can be coercive control. A single act of publishing or attempting to publish sexually explicit images of a family or household member can also be coercive control.

A judge can issue a 209A restraining order in addition to, and independently of, the criminal charge under M.G.L. c. 265, § 43A. A threat to publish an intimate image to intimidate, coerce, or extort the person shown, often called sextortion, can also be a federal crime under the TAKE IT DOWN Act.

Deepfake Nudes and AI-Generated Porn Under Massachusetts Law

Sharing a deepfake nude of a real person can be a crime in Massachusetts even when the person was never photographed nude. Section 43A(b) expressly applies to visual material produced by digitization. The statute defines digitization to include creating or altering visual material through computer-generated images. The statute applies to images that realistically depict a real identifiable person in a nude, partially nude, or sexual context. The statute applies even if the person’s actual body was never photographed and the face was digitally imposed on another person’s body using AI software.

To obtain a conviction in a deepfake intimate image case, the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant knowingly distributed the visual material and that the person shown is identifiable. In addition, the Commonwealth must prove that the person did not consent and that the distribution caused physical or economic injury or substantial emotional distress.

The Commonwealth must also prove one of the two required states of mind. Defense counsel in a deepfake case obtains a forensic analysis of the digital evidence. Counsel examines whether the image was AI-generated, what software was used, what metadata the image contains, and whether the image was created and distributed by the defendant or by someone else with access to the relevant devices.

Images of Minors and Teen Sexting

The Commonwealth can bring child pornography charges when the person shown in a nude or sexual image is under 18. The § 43A offense is separate from the child pornography statutes and from the juvenile offense in M.G.L. c. 272, § 29D.

A defendant whose conduct involves AI-generated intimate images can face charges at the same time under two or more of § 43A, the child pornography statutes, and § 29D. Section 43A(b) criminalizes the nonconsensual distribution itself. The child pornography statutes, M.G.L. c. 272, §§ 29A to 29C, apply to the creation, possession, and dissemination of an image that depicts a child. Section 43A provides that it does not preclude a prosecution under § 29C.

A minor who possesses, purchases, or shares a nude or sexual image of a person under 18 can be charged under M.G.L. c. 272, § 29D. The minor may be eligible for the educational diversion program under M.G.L. c. 119, § 54B. Defense counsel evaluates the potential charges under each statute separately. For the authentication challenges, SORB analysis, and criminal defense considerations specific to AI-generated imagery, see AI-Generated Porn, Nudes, and Deepfake Criminal Defense Law in Massachusetts.

For the specific authentication challenges in deepfake cases, see Digital Evidence in Massachusetts Criminal Cases and Digital Search Warrants in Massachusetts.

Revenge Porn Under Federal Law: The TAKE IT DOWN Act

Knowingly publishing a nonconsensual intimate image online is a federal crime under the Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on Websites and Networks Act, known as the TAKE IT DOWN Act. The TAKE IT DOWN Act covers authentic images and deepfakes of an identifiable person. The TAKE IT DOWN Act amends Section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. § 223). The TAKE IT DOWN Act applies to the publication of intimate images through interactive computer services, which means social media platforms, websites, messaging applications, and any online service.

Federal Penalties for Revenge Porn, Deepfakes, and Threats

The TAKE IT DOWN Act creates several distinct criminal offenses.

• Knowingly publishing an authentic intimate visual depiction of an adult without consent, with intent to harm or with harm resulting, is punishable by up to 2 years of imprisonment, fines, or both
• Knowingly publishing an authentic intimate visual depiction of a minor is punishable by up to 3 years of imprisonment, fines, or both
• Knowingly publishing a digital forgery, meaning an AI-generated deepfake, of an adult or minor depicting intimate conduct without consent is punishable by up to 2 years of imprisonment for an adult victim and up to 3 years for a minor
• Threatening to publish authentic or AI-generated intimate images with intent to intimidate, coerce, extort, or cause mental distress is punishable by imprisonment. The maximum prison term is 2 years for an authentic image and 18 months for a digital forgery when the image depicts an adult. The maximum prison term is 3 years for an authentic image and 30 months for a digital forgery when the image depicts a minor

The federal penalties are in addition to, and not a substitute for, state criminal liability under Chapter 118 and M.G.L. c. 265, § 43A. A Massachusetts defendant who shares a former partner’s intimate images on a social media platform can face prosecution under both the Massachusetts criminal harassment statute and the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act. The federal criminal provisions took effect on May 19, 2025.

The 48-Hour Takedown Rule for Platforms

The TAKE IT DOWN Act also requires covered platforms, meaning public websites, online services, and mobile applications that host user-generated content, to establish a process by which individuals can request removal of nonconsensual intimate images. A platform must remove a reported image within 48 hours of receiving a valid request and must make reasonable efforts to remove identical copies. The compliance deadline for covered platforms was May 19, 2026. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), not the Department of Justice, enforces the platform requirements. The FTC treats a platform’s failure to comply as an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the FTC Act.

A platform that receives a valid removal request must take the images down within 48 hours. Defense counsel must therefore move quickly to preserve the evidence through screenshots, preservation letters to the platform, and subpoenas to the platform before the platform removes the images. Defense counsel cannot examine images and records that the platform has already deleted.

Revenge Porn Before September 18, 2024

The Commonwealth cannot charge a person under § 43A(b) for a distribution that occurred before September 18, 2024, because Chapter 118 does not apply retroactively. Prosecutors in Massachusetts relied on several other statutes to address nonconsensual intimate image distribution before Chapter 118 took effect. None of the statutes used before Chapter 118 applied to every nonconsensual distribution of intimate images.

M.G.L. c. 272, § 105 (Photographing an Unsuspecting Person)

The “voyeurism” or “upskirting” statute applies only to images taken secretly and without consent. Section 105 does not cover images originally taken with consent that were later distributed without consent, which is a common scenario.

M.G.L. c. 265, § 43A (Criminal Harassment)

Before Chapter 118, § 43A required a pattern of conduct or a series of acts, not a single act. A single distribution of intimate images did not meet the requirement of a pattern of conduct or a series of acts.

M.G.L. c. 272, § 29B and § 29C (Child Pornography)

Sections 29B and 29C apply only when the person depicted is under 18. Before Chapter 118, Massachusetts had no equivalent criminal statute for images of adults.

Civil Remedies

A victim can sue for invasion of privacy under M.G.L. c. 214, § 1B. In a civil suit, the victim must bring and pay for the lawsuit. A civil judgment imposes no criminal penalty and creates no CORI entry for the defendant.

Chapter 118 made it a crime to distribute intimate images of an adult without consent, even when the images were taken with consent.

Defenses to a Revenge Porn Charge in Massachusetts

Consent to Sharing the Image

The statute requires proof that the depicted person did not consent to the distribution of the visual material. The Commonwealth cannot prove lack of consent if the depicted person consented to the distribution, expressly or by implication. Evidence of consent can include proof that the depicted person shared the images publicly, gave permission for the specific distribution, or sent the same images to the same people. The statute expressly provides that consent to the creation of an image is not consent to its distribution. Express consent to the distribution is a complete defense.

The Person in the Image Is Not Identifiable

The Commonwealth must prove that the person shown was identifiable from the image itself or from information offered with the image, or that the person who distributed the image identified the person shown. An image that shows no face and no identifying feature, and that was shared with no name or other identifying information, does not satisfy the identifiability element. Defense counsel raises the identifiability defense most often when the images were heavily edited or the person’s face was removed or hidden.

No Injury or Emotional Distress From the Distribution

The statute requires that the distribution cause the person shown physical or economic injury or substantial emotional distress. The Commonwealth may be unable to prove causation when few people saw the images, when the images were removed quickly, or when there is no credible evidence of the required harm. Defense counsel examines the scope of the distribution to challenge the Commonwealth’s proof of causation. The facts relevant to causation include who saw the images, how long the images stayed online, and what specific harm the depicted person experienced.

Who Sent the Image: Shared Phones and Hacked Accounts

In digital image distribution cases, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant distributed the images, not someone else with access to the defendant’s device, account, or network. Defense counsel raises the attribution defense most often when the case involves shared devices, compromised accounts, or hacking.

Defense counsel demands the complete digital evidence, including the metadata of the images as distributed and the account access logs for the platform on which the images were shared. Defense counsel also demands the browser and app history on the device and any evidence that a third party accessed the relevant accounts or devices.

Attribution and authentication are related but distinct. A judge may find that a screenshot is genuine without finding that the defendant wrote or sent the message. The firm’s guide to admitting and objecting to digital evidence in Massachusetts criminal cases addresses authorship, metadata, screenshots, platform records, phone extractions, hearsay, and completeness.

Under Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), the police generally must obtain a warrant before searching a cell phone. Under the Fourth Amendment and article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, a warrant to search a phone, computer, or online account must be supported by probable cause and must describe with particularity the data to be searched. A warrant that authorizes an unlimited search of everything on a device is overbroad. Defense counsel moves to suppress digital evidence obtained through an overbroad warrant or without a warrant entirely. See Digital Search Warrants in Massachusetts and Illegal Searches and Seizures in Massachusetts.

Authentication of Deepfake and AI-Generated Images

In a deepfake case, the defense can argue that the alleged victim or a third party created the image with AI and falsely attributed the image to the defendant. Defense counsel can challenge the image under the rules of evidence on authentication. The Commonwealth has the burden of authenticating the image before the judge admits the image in evidence. Defense counsel engages digital forensics experts to examine whether the images are genuine photographs, whether they are AI-generated images that someone else created and attributed to the defendant, and whether the metadata is consistent with the defendant’s devices and accounts.

The Clerk-Magistrate Hearing Before a Complaint Issues

Many nonconsensual intimate image cases begin with an application for a criminal complaint filed days or weeks after the alleged distribution, rather than with an arrest. A person who was not arrested is generally entitled to notice and a clerk-magistrate hearing under M.G.L. c. 218, § 35A before a complaint issues for a misdemeanor.

No arraignment, public CORI entry, or formal criminal charge results from an application that the clerk-magistrate denies. A licensing board or a university has no criminal charge to act on after the clerk-magistrate denies the application. Many licensing boards treat a charge against one of their licensed professionals severely when the charge involves dishonesty or sexual misconduct.

A criminal charge can also put the academic standing of university students at risk. A judge can dismiss a complaint without prejudice when the clerk-magistrate issued the complaint without a required hearing. Commonwealth v. DiBennadetto, 436 Mass. 310, 313-314 (2002). The police or the complainant can file a second application after a denial. In Cabrera v. Commonwealth, 496 Mass. 179 (2025), the Supreme Judicial Court held that collateral estoppel did not bar a second application filed two and a half years after a clerk-magistrate denied the first application. The court reasoned that the denial of the first application was not a final judgment.

The Supreme Judicial Court also held that the delay did not violate due process, because the defendant made no showing of severe prejudice to the defense. Most denied applications are never refiled. The deadline for refiling is the statute of limitations, which is six years for most crimes. G. L. c. 277, § 63. The page on how criminal cases get dismissed explains the other reasons a judge may dismiss a complaint. The student AI deepfake and explicit image defense page explains the juvenile offense under G. L. c. 272, § 29D, the § 54B diversion program, and the parallel school discipline case.

Attorney Serpa has handled clerk-magistrate hearings in the district courts of Greater Boston since 1995. The clerk-magistrate hearing is private. The rules of evidence do not apply at the hearing. Unlike a judge at arraignment, the clerk-magistrate has discretion to decline to issue a complaint. In an intimate image case, counsel can present the relationship history, the actual scope of the alleged distribution, and the attribution weaknesses before any charge issues.

A clerk-magistrate may hold the application open for several months and then decline to issue the complaint if there are no further incidents, even when probable cause exists. An application that the clerk-magistrate holds open and then denies never appears on a CORI report. Serpa Law Office lists case outcomes at Massachusetts Criminal Defense Results.

Revenge Porn and Sex Offender Registration

A person convicted of revenge porn under M.G.L. c. 265, § 43A(b) does not have to register with the Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB). Massachusetts prosecutes revenge porn as criminal harassment. Section 43A is not among the sex offenses listed in M.G.L. c. 6, § 178C.

By contrast, a person convicted under M.G.L. c. 272, § 29B or § 29C (child pornography) must register with SORB. SORB can classify the person at Level 2 or Level 3. Sections 29B and 29C may apply if the depicted person was under 18. See Sexual Assault and Rape Defense in Massachusetts.

A § 43A charge that ends in a dismissal or another result without a conviction stays on the defendant’s criminal record until a judge or the Commissioner of Probation seals the record. The standards and waiting periods for sealing are explained at Expunging or Sealing Your Criminal Record.

Revenge Porn Charges Against Licensed Professionals, Students, and Non-Citizens

Licensed Professionals

Licensed professionals such as physicians, attorneys, nurses, engineers, and financial advisors may have to report a charge under M.G.L. c. 265, § 43A to a licensing authority. The reporting duty depends on the profession and the governing rule. An attorney must notify bar counsel within ten days of a conviction under SJC Rule 4:01, § 12(8). SJC Rule 4:01 defines a conviction to include an admission to sufficient facts. An attorney does not have to report a charge alone to the Board of Bar Overseers.

FINRA requires disclosure of certain criminal charges when they are filed. Some licensing boards require notice of a pending charge on their own schedules. Some reporting duties begin when the complaint issues, before arraignment. The CORI entry created at arraignment appears in background checks while the case is pending. A standard CORI report, which most employers and landlords receive, does not include a dismissed case or a not guilty finding. For a licensed professional, no arraignment or CORI entry results from an application that the clerk-magistrate denies.

University Students

Intimate images are often shared after breakups within university communities. University students at Harvard, MIT, BU, BC, Northeastern, Tufts, and other Boston-area schools who are charged under § 43A often face a university disciplinary proceeding at the same time. The university handles the campus case under its sexual misconduct or Title IX policy and usually applies the preponderance of the evidence standard. The university can suspend or expel the student before the pretrial conference in the criminal case.

The university and the criminal court apply different standards of proof and different rules of evidence. A statement the student makes in the campus proceeding can be used in the criminal case. Defense counsel coordinates the defense of the campus proceeding and the criminal case from the start.

Cambridge District Court (Harvard, MIT, Lesley), BMC Central and Brighton (BU, Northeastern, Suffolk, Emerson), Newton District Court (BC), Somerville District Court (Tufts), and Waltham District Court (Brandeis, Bentley) often hear student-related nonconsensual intimate image cases. See College and University Student Criminal Defense.

Non-Citizens and Visa Holders

For a non-citizen or visa holder, federal immigration law can impose its own consequences on a conviction or a continuance without a finding (CWOF) on a § 43A charge. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i) and 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i), a non-citizen can be inadmissible or deportable for a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT). The question whether a § 43A conviction is a CIMT depends on the elements of the offense, not on the facts of the particular case. An immigration lawyer should review any proposed plea or admission before the non-citizen accepts it.

Questions at an immigration interview about the arrest, or about conduct described in the police report, can create obstacles of their own. An immigration lawyer should review the exact question, the person’s status, and the court record before the person files a petition or sits for an interview. See Immigration Consequences of Massachusetts Criminal Charges.

Courts Where Serpa Law Office Defends Revenge Porn Cases

The Commonwealth prosecutes § 43A cases in the District Court or the BMC division for the place where the alleged offense occurred. Serpa Law Office handles revenge porn cases across Greater Boston.

• BMC Central Division, where the Suffolk County DA prosecutes Boston-based cases involving university students, financial district professionals, and the general Boston population, and which hears many domestic-relationship image distribution cases
• Cambridge District Court, where the Middlesex County DA handles Harvard, MIT, and Lesley University student cases and Kendall Square technology professional cases
• Newton District Court, where the Middlesex County DA handles BC campus-adjacent cases and Newton professional community cases
• Somerville District Court, where the Middlesex County DA handles Tufts University cases and Somerville and Medford residential cases
• Waltham District Court, where the Middlesex County DA handles Brandeis and Bentley campus cases and Route 128 technology professional cases
• Woburn District Court, where the Middlesex County DA handles Burlington and Woburn technology corridor professional cases
• Dedham District Court, where the Norfolk County DA handles Wellesley, Needham, and Westwood professional community cases
• Brookline District Court, where the Norfolk County DA handles BU and BC off-campus housing cases
• Quincy District Court, where the Norfolk County DA handles South Shore residential cases
• Hingham District Court, where the Plymouth County DA handles South Shore professional and residential cases
• Framingham District Court, where the Middlesex County DA handles MetroWest community and international student community cases

The FBI may investigate a case in which deepfakes were distributed through a major platform such as Instagram, Snapchat, Reddit, or a pornography site. The United States Attorney’s Office may then prosecute the case in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts under the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act.

Restraining Orders, Harassment Prevention Orders, Takedown Requests, and Lawsuits Over Revenge Porn

Victims of nonconsensual intimate image distribution have several remedies in addition to the criminal prosecution. A defendant can face two or more of the remedies below at the same time.

• Criminal prosecution. The District Attorney’s Office can prosecute a § 43A charge without the alleged victim’s active participation, as in many domestic violence cases
• A 258E harassment prevention order. A victim may petition for a civil 258E harassment prevention order against the person who distributed the images. The order can prohibit further distribution and contact
• A 209A abuse prevention order. A victim who has a qualifying family or household relationship with the accused may ask a judge for a 209A restraining order under the coercive control provision that Chapter 118 added to M.G.L. c. 209A, § 1. A judge can issue the order based on a pattern of threats to publish the images, or on an attempt to publish them, even when no distribution occurred
• TAKE IT DOWN Act platform removal. A victim may submit a takedown request to any covered platform, whether a social media site, website, or app. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act requires the platform to remove the image within 48 hours of a valid request. The platform cannot decline a valid request
• Civil lawsuits. A victim may sue for invasion of privacy under M.G.L. c. 214, § 1B, or for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) also provides a federal civil remedy in 15 U.S.C. § 6851. A person whose intimate image was disclosed without consent, using the internet or another means of interstate commerce, can sue the person who disclosed it in federal court when that person knew of or recklessly disregarded the lack of consent. The person shown can recover actual damages or liquidated damages of $150,000, plus attorney’s fees. The federal court can also order the defendant to stop displaying or disclosing the image

Contact Serpa Law Office at 617.936.0201 for an immediate confidential consultation. The Boston office is at 20 Park Plaza, Suite 400A. The Quincy office is at 500 Victory Road, Suite 400A.

Related Serpa Law Office resources

• Hidden Camera and Secret Recording Charges in Massachusetts
• Sexual Assault and Rape Defense in Massachusetts
• Massachusetts 258E Harassment Prevention Orders
• 209A Restraining Orders (Abuse Prevention Orders)
• Digital Evidence in Massachusetts Criminal Cases
• Digital Search Warrants in Massachusetts
• Your Fifth Amendment Right to Refuse a Passcode in Massachusetts
• Criminal Defense for Licensed Professionals in Massachusetts
• College and University Student Criminal Defense
• Immigration Consequences of Massachusetts Criminal Charges