Current Lawsuit

DEFINITION: 

Revenge porn is the distribution of sexually explicit images or videos of individuals without their consent.

LEGISLATION:

"As of October 1, 2022, a new section of the US Federal Code, 15 U.S.C. § 6851 Civil action relating to disclosure of intimate images, went into effect. This was passed via Section 1309 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 and amended the Violence Against Women Act, allowing victims of revenge porn to file civil suits against those who released the materials. Victims may sue for up to US$150,000 in actual damages as well as legal fees; restraining orders and injunctions may also be issued to temporarily or permanently halt any further distribution or disclosure. It is the first Federal law concerning revenge porn and helps address the patchwork of state laws in effect at the time of its passage.

The burden of bringing such a suit is still on the victim and the code does not formally criminalize the release of revenge porn. Communications platforms, including websites, would be liable if they solicited such material or if they deal predominantly in revenge porn. 

Importantly, the legal code includes specific wording which holds that a victim's allowance of such materials to be created and any instances where the victim shared that material with specific individuals do not imply wholesale consent to share the material with any other individuals, two commonly anticipated defenses which defendants may raise.

Observers have also noted the shame which may make many victims reluctant to report or pursue such investigations. While victims of sexual abuse can have their identities kept out of court proceedings, which will only refer to them as Jane Doe or John Doe, few such safeguards exist for victims of revenge porn. Depending on jurisdiction, images in court cases may be entered as evidence and become publicly viewable. Suggestions have been made to revise evidentiary laws to allow anonymization of plaintiffs and de-identification of images entered as evidence. 15 U.S.C. § 6851 specifically allowed for injunctions to preserve plaintiff anonymity when filing civil suits in Federal court."

"As a psychologist, I would like to address the pressing issue of revenge porn, particularly within the context of coercive control. Revenge porn represents a deeply perverse and sadistic use of power and a disturbing manipulation of trust of  that has profound psychological consequences for the victims involved.

Revenge porn is not merely a matter of privacy violation or intimate content dissemination; it is intricately linked with coercive control, where one individual exerts power and control over another through manipulative tactics and threats of harm. This coercive element intensifies the psychological impact on the victim, leading to significant trauma and emotional distress.

Victims of revenge porn, especially when coupled with coercive control, may experience a range of psychological symptoms, including anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and profound feelings of shame and humiliation. Their lives are derailed by incessant distractions, intrusive thoughts, fear of more harm, loss of control, isolation, ostracization, blame, and profound disorientation. Victims of revenge porn never see the world the same way again. The violation of privacy and trust, coupled with the threat of harm, undermines the victim's autonomy and agency, contributing to a sense of powerlessness and dependence on the perpetrator.

Moreover, the societal tolerance of revenge porn and coercive control further exacerbates the sense of injustice and betrayal experienced by victims. The normalization and acceptance of such behaviors perpetuates a culture where victims feel silenced and marginalized, hindering their ability to seek support and justice. That consumers of revenge porn view the crime as humorous, deserved, and negligible reveals a dark side of humanity to victims that they would otherwise never have been exposed to.

It is imperative that we, as a society, recognize the complex psychological effects of revenge porn and coercive control and take decisive action to address these issues. This includes implementing legal reforms to better protect victims, raising awareness about the psychological impact of these behaviors, and providing comprehensive support services for those affected. The best treatment for survivors is justice which involves unambiguous consequences such as prosecuting, punishing, fining and incarcerating perpetrators. Perpetrators of this type of crime are likely to be repeat offenders.

As psychologists, we are committed to advocating for the rights and well-being of victims, empowering them to regain control and agency in their lives, and working towards a society where revenge porn and coercive control are no longer tolerated. It is only through collective effort and empathy that we can create a safer and more supportive environment for all individuals affected by these harmful practices."

What are the examples of FTC violations?

"These cases can involve fraud, scams, identity theft, false advertising, privacy violations, anti-competitive behavior and more. The Legal Library has detailed information about cases we have brought in federal court or through our internal administrative process, called an adjudicative proceeding."

How much is an FTC fine?

"Companies that receive this Notice and nevertheless engage in prohibited practices can face civil penalties of up to $50,120 per violation.

The FTC's civil enforcement actions shut down fraud and get restitution for consumers or disgorgement to the U.S. Treasury."

“Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children: A Sixth Follow-up Review of Industry Practices in the Motion Picture, Music Recording & Electronic Game Industries” analyzed information from sources including marketing documents submitted by industry members, an undercover “mystery” shopper survey, consumer surveys conducted in shopping malls and by telephone, “surfs” of industry Web sites, and data acquired from proprietary ad-monitoring services. Findings include:

Movies: Although the movie industry determines on a case-by-case basis whether a PG-13-rated film may be advertised to children under 13, there is no explicit policy restricting such marketing. As detailed in the marketing plans reviewed by the Commission, movie studios targeted violent PG-13 films to children under 13 both through advertising and promotional tie-ins with foods, toys, and other licensed products. Studios continued to place a significant number of ads for violent R-rated movies on television shows and Internet sites highly popular with children under 17. 

Increasingly, industry members post “red tag” trailers for R-rated movies, intended for age-restricted audiences, on the Internet without age-based access restrictions. Although the MPAA rating and rating reasons are not always prominent, the industry generally does display the MPAA rating in advertising. Rating information on DVDs is not prominently placed; moreover, more and more DVD versions of movies are not rated, and some studios hype the lack of a rating. The Commission’s research shows that parents are not adequately informed that unrated DVDs may contain additional violent or adult content. On the positive side, theaters denied 72 percent of underage shoppers admission to R-rated movies, a significant improvement from 2006 and even more so from 2000. Most retailers, however, continue their poor record of enforcement against underage purchase of R-rated and unrated DVDs.

The movie industry should place the rating and rating reasons on the front of DVD cases and disclose rating information prominently in all advertising venues.

Parents who want to know more about how entertainment for children is rated can visit ftc.gov/ratings. This site describes the different ratings systems, and provides links to the organizations that sponsor them."