CONSENT Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Schatz, Brian [D-HI]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 8, 2026
Bottom line
The CONSENT Act creates a new federal civil remedy for victims of non-consensual sharing of intimate images, including digitally altered ones, aiming to deter such transmissions and provide accessible legal recourse.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a new federal private right of action, allowing individuals to sue those who knowingly or recklessly transmit unsolicited intimate visual depictions, including those created or altered using artificial intelligence (deepfakes), without the recipient's consent. It provides for statutory or compensatory damages, attorney fees, and injunctive relief, while also including privacy protections for minors in court proceedings.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill provides a crucial legal tool for victims of 'revenge porn' and deepfake abuse, who currently face a patchwork of inconsistent and often inadequate state laws. They contend it empowers individuals to seek justice and deter harmful behavior in the digital age, especially given the rapid proliferation of AI-generated content that can cause severe emotional and reputational damage.
Opponents contend
Critics might express concerns about potential First Amendment implications, arguing that the broad definition of 'intimate visual depiction' or the scope of 'transmission' could inadvertently chill protected speech or lead to frivolous lawsuits. They may also question the federalization of an issue traditionally handled at the state level, potentially overburdening federal courts.
The bill is short and relatively straightforward, making it accessible for a quick review by an informed reader.
Section 1
Short Title
This section formally names the legislation the "Curbing Online Non-consensual Sexually Explicit Nudity Transfers Act," which can be abbreviated as the "CONSENT Act." This official designation provides a clear and concise reference point for the bill, facilitating its discussion and tracking within legislative processes and public discourse.
Supporters argue
A clear and concise short title helps in public discourse and legislative tracking, making the bill's purpose easily identifiable. The acronym 'CONSENT Act' directly reflects the bill's core principle of requiring consent for intimate visual depictions.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against short titles, as they are primarily for identification and do not contain substantive policy.
Section 2(a)
Definitions of Key Terms
This section defines critical terms used throughout the Act. Notably, "consent" is defined as affirmative, conscious, and voluntary authorization. "Intimate digital forgery" is introduced to cover AI-generated or manipulated intimate content. The definition of "intimate visual depiction" is expanded to explicitly include these digital forgeries, and "transmit" is clarified to mean direct sending, excluding public publishing.
Section 2(b)(1)
Establishment of Private Right of Action
This provision creates a new federal civil cause of action, allowing individuals aged 18 or older (or their legal guardians if minors/incapacitated) to sue someone who knowingly or recklessly transmits an intimate visual depiction without their consent. The transmission must occur in or affect interstate or foreign commerce, providing a broad jurisdictional basis for federal court intervention.
Section 2(b)(2)
Available Relief for Victims
This section outlines the types of relief available to plaintiffs in a civil action. Victims can choose between statutory damages (up to $1,000) or compensatory damages for emotional distress. They can also recover reasonable attorney fees and costs, and obtain injunctive relief (temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, or permanent injunctions) to stop further transmissions, providing both financial and protective remedies.
Section 2(b)(1)(D)
Exceptions to Civil Action
This provision specifies that a civil action cannot be brought against a person who transmits an intimate visual depiction for a good faith medical, educational, or law enforcement purpose. This crucial carve-out ensures that legitimate professional activities, where the transmission of such depictions might be necessary, are protected from legal challenge under this Act, thereby narrowing its scope to target malicious or non-consensual transmissions.
The bill explicitly includes "intimate digital forgery" within the definition of "intimate visual depiction." An "intimate digital forgery" is defined as an intimate visual depiction of an identifiable individual that falsely represents them or their conduct, is created through AI or other technological means, and is indistinguishable from an authentic depiction to a reasonable person.
Section 2(a)(2) and 2(a)(3)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining terms, but its significance for addressing emerging technologies like deepfakes could be easily overlooked by a reader not specifically looking for such details.
Case for: This inclusion is vital for the bill to be effective against modern forms of digital harm, ensuring that victims of AI-generated non-consensual intimate content have legal recourse. Without it, the bill would quickly become outdated and ineffective against sophisticated digital manipulation.
Case against: Some might argue that the "indistinguishable from an authentic" standard for digital forgeries could be difficult to prove in court, potentially limiting the effectiveness of this provision. Concerns about the technology's rapid evolution might also suggest that such definitions could quickly become obsolete, requiring frequent legislative updates.
Estimated impact: Significantly broadens the scope of the bill to cover a rapidly growing and particularly insidious form of online abuse, potentially affecting millions of individuals as AI technology advances and becomes more accessible.
A rule of construction stating that nothing in this section shall be construed or applied so as to abridge the exercise of rights guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Section 2(c)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to address potential constitutional concerns proactively and signal legislative intent to avoid infringing on protected expression, rather than an attempt to hide something controversial.
Case for: This clause is essential to protect constitutional rights and prevent the bill from being challenged on free speech grounds. It signals legislative intent to avoid infringing on protected expression and guides judicial interpretation.
Case against: Critics might argue that such a general clause is insufficient to truly protect First Amendment rights if the underlying definitions or scope of the bill are inherently problematic. They might contend that the bill's language itself, rather than a saving clause, should be meticulously crafted to avoid chilling speech.
Estimated impact: Aims to prevent constitutional challenges and ensures the bill's application is consistent with free speech principles, potentially influencing judicial interpretation and the scope of cases brought under the Act.