Massachusetts Revenge Porn and Nonconsensual Intimate Image FAQ

Chapter 118, Acts of 2024, effective September 18, 2024, amended M.G.L. c. 265, § 43A (the criminal harassment statute) to make nonconsensual intimate image distribution a criminal offense in Massachusetts. The statute makes it a crime to knowingly distribute visual material depicting a nude, partially nude, or sexually explicit person who is readily identifiable and who did not consent to the distribution, where the distribution causes physical harm, economic harm, or substantial emotional distress to the depicted person.

September 18, 2024. Governor Healey signed Chapter 118, Acts of 2024 on June 20, 2024, with the statute taking effect 90 days later on September 18, 2024. Conduct occurring before September 18, 2024 cannot be prosecuted under Chapter 118.

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. A CWOF is available for first-time defendants in appropriate circumstances.

Yes — this is the most important provision in the statute. Chapter 118 expressly states that consent to the creation of visual material does not constitute consent to the distribution of that material. The most common scenario — images taken during a consensual relationship and shared without consent after a breakup — is fully covered by Chapter 118. The consensual origin of the images is not a defense.

Yes. Chapter 118 applies to AI-generated images that realistically depict a real identifiable person in a nude, partially nude, or sexual context, even if the 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 consent has committed a criminal offense under Chapter 118. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act also expressly covers AI-generated deepfakes.

No. The statute requires that distribution cause physical harm, economic harm, or substantial emotional distress — but it does not specify a minimum number of recipients. Sharing images with even one person could satisfy the distribution element if it causes the required harm. However, the scope of distribution is relevant to the causation element — a narrower distribution may make it harder for the prosecution to prove that the distribution caused the required harm.

The Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on Websites and Networks Act, signed May 19, 2025, creates parallel federal criminal liability for nonconsensual intimate image distribution through online platforms. Penalties: up to two years imprisonment for offenses involving adults, up to three years for minors. The federal law also requires covered platforms — social media sites, websites, and apps hosting user-generated content — to remove reported images within 48 hours of receiving a valid takedown request. Massachusetts defendants who distribute images through social media face exposure under both state and federal law simultaneously.

A charge under Chapter 118 creates a CORI entry at arraignment — the first formal court appearance. The CORI entry shows the charge as pending until the case is resolved, and then as dismissed, as a CWOF, or as a conviction depending on the outcome. A clerk-magistrate hearing denial — which prevents arraignment — creates no CORI entry at all.

In most cases, yes. Chapter 118 charges typically arise from a complaint submitted to the court days or weeks after the alleged distribution — not from a warrantless arrest at the scene. This means the clerk-magistrate hearing under M.G.L. c. 218, § 35A is available in most Chapter 118 cases. A successful clerk-magistrate hearing denial means no arraignment, no CORI entry, and no formal criminal charge. It is the most important available outcome in any eligible case.

At the clerk-magistrate hearing, the complaint applicant (typically the victim or a police officer) presents evidence that probable cause exists to believe the defendant committed the offense. The defendant has the right to appear, respond to the evidence, and present their own account. The clerk-magistrate then decides whether to issue the complaint — which leads to arraignment — or deny it. A denial ends the proceeding without any public record. Defense counsel at the hearing challenges whether the evidence satisfies the elements of Chapter 118 — particularly the identification, consent, and causation elements — and presents evidence of the defendant’s background and character. See: A Practitioner’s Guide to Massachusetts Clerk-Magistrate Hearings.

A conviction under M.G.L. c. 265, § 43A for nonconsensual intimate image distribution does not automatically require Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB) registration. The criminal harassment statute is not on the list of offenses requiring mandatory SORB registration. However, SORB may assert sexual motivation in a post-conviction classification proceeding and seek registration on that basis. A conviction for distributing images of a minor under M.G.L. c. 272, § 29B or § 29C (child pornography statutes) does require mandatory SORB registration.

The primary defenses are: (1) attribution — someone else with access to the defendant’s device or account distributed the images, not the defendant; (2) identification — the depicted person is not readily identifiable from the images as distributed; (3) consent to distribution — the depicted person expressly or impliedly authorized the distribution; (4) no causation of harm — the distribution did not cause the required physical, economic, or emotional harm; (5) pre-September 18, 2024 conduct — the distribution occurred before the statute’s effective date; and (6) for deepfake cases, authentication — the images are not real depictions of the alleged victim or were not created and distributed by the defendant.

No. Under Riley v. California (573 U.S. 373, 2014), police must obtain a search warrant supported by probable cause before searching your phone, computer, or online accounts. A warrant must describe with particularity the specific data to be examined — a general warrant to search all device contents is constitutionally deficient under the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement. You have the right to refuse consent to a search of your device. See: Your Fifth Amendment Right to Refuse a Passcode in Massachusetts and Digital Search Warrants in Massachusetts.

Not under Chapter 118, Acts of 2024. The statute applies only to conduct occurring on or after September 18, 2024. Distribution of intimate images before that date cannot be prosecuted under the new statute. However, conduct before September 18, 2024 may still be subject to prosecution under other statutes — M.G.L. c. 265, § 43A (criminal harassment requiring a course of conduct), M.G.L. c. 272, § 105 (photographing an unsuspecting person, if applicable), or civil liability. If you are being investigated or charged for pre-September 18, 2024 conduct, consult counsel immediately.

Invoke your right to remain silent immediately and clearly: “I am invoking my right to remain silent. I want to speak with a lawyer.” Do not make any statement to police, do not explain the images or your relationship with the depicted person, and do not consent to a search of your phone, device, or online accounts. Contact Serpa Law Office at 617.936.0201 immediately. See: What to Do in the First 24 Hours After a Massachusetts Arrest.

A Chapter 118 charge creates a CORI entry at arraignment that triggers mandatory licensing board disclosure for most Massachusetts licensed professions. BORIM, the Board of Bar Overseers, and FINRA all treat criminal charges involving sexual misconduct as reportable disciplinary events from the moment of arraignment — before any conviction. A clerk-magistrate hearing denial, which prevents arraignment, is the most important protection for any licensed professional.

A Chapter 118 charge that reaches arraignment typically triggers simultaneous Title IX disciplinary proceedings at your university. The campus proceeding operates under the preponderance of the evidence standard — 51% — which is lower than the criminal beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard. A student can be suspended or expelled through the campus process before the criminal case reaches a pretrial conference. A clerk-magistrate hearing denial prevents the formal charge that initiates the campus process. See: College and University Student Criminal Defense.

A conviction under M.G.L. c. 265, § 43A for nonconsensual intimate image distribution may constitute a crime of moral turpitude (CIMT) that renders 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). All proposed dispositions must be reviewed for immigration consequences before acceptance. See: Immigration Consequences of Massachusetts Criminal Charges.

Report to local police — file a complaint at the police department in the jurisdiction where you reside or where the distribution occurred. Police will submit a complaint application to the court, and a clerk-magistrate hearing will typically be scheduled. You may also apply directly to the District Court for a 258E harassment prevention order against the person who distributed the images — Chapter 118 expressly authorizes a 258E order in these cases. If you are in immediate danger, call 911 first.

Yes — through two mechanisms. Under the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, you can submit a takedown request directly to any covered platform (Instagram, Reddit, Facebook, dedicated pornography sites) requesting removal. The platform must remove the images within 48 hours of receiving a valid request. Platforms were required to establish removal processes by May 19, 2026. You can also seek a court order — as part of a criminal prosecution or a civil action — directing the platform to remove the images. Serpa Law Office can assist in coordinating the removal request and the legal proceedings.

Yes. Chapter 118 expressly authorizes a victim to petition for a 258E harassment prevention order against a person who violated the nonconsensual intimate image statute. If the person who distributed the images is a current or former domestic partner, a 209A abuse prevention order may also be available — including based on the threat to distribute images under Chapter 118’s coercive control amendment to M.G.L. c. 209A, § 1.