PROTECT Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 23, 2026
Bottom line
The PROTECT Act of 2026 aims to combat the non-consensual distribution of intimate visual depictions by placing stringent verification and consent obligations on online platforms and users, backed by significant civil and criminal penalties.
What it actually does
This bill, the PROTECT Act of 2026, establishes new federal requirements for online platforms and users regarding the uploading and distribution of pornographic images. It mandates that covered platforms verify the identity and age of users uploading such content, and crucially, verify the age and explicit written consent of all individuals depicted in the images for both the sex acts performed and the distribution of the specific image. It also imposes civil penalties on platforms and users for non-compliance and criminal penalties for users who violate the consent requirement.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue this bill is a critical step to protect individuals from the severe harm caused by the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, often referred to as "revenge porn" or deepfakes. They contend that existing laws are insufficient to address the rapid spread of such content online and that robust verification requirements are necessary to ensure genuine consent and accountability from both platforms and individuals. The bill's focus on explicit written consent for both the act and distribution, along with age verification, is seen as a strong deterrent and a means to empower victims.
Opponents contend
Opponents may argue that the bill's verification requirements are overly burdensome, impractical for online platforms to implement at scale, and could lead to significant privacy concerns for all users. They might also raise First Amendment concerns, suggesting that broad definitions of "pornographic image" and stringent consent requirements could inadvertently restrict protected speech or lead to censorship. Furthermore, the retroactive application to images uploaded before the effective date could be challenged as unconstitutional.
The bill is relatively short and its core provisions are clearly laid out, making it accessible for an informed reader to evaluate its primary impacts within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(a), amending 18 U.S.C. 2257B(a)(2)
Definition of "Covered Platform"
This provision defines which online entities are subject to the bill's requirements. It includes websites, online services, and applications that serve the public and primarily host user-generated content (like social media or video-sharing sites) or regularly publish/host intimate visual depictions. It explicitly excludes broadband providers, email services, and platforms primarily featuring pre-selected content with incidental interactive features.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a clear definition of "covered platform" is essential to ensure that the entities primarily responsible for hosting and distributing user-generated content are held accountable for preventing non-consensual material. They contend that excluding certain services like email prevents overreach while targeting the main vectors of harm.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that the definition is still too broad or ambiguous, potentially encompassing platforms not primarily intended for adult content, leading to over-compliance or unintended restrictions on legitimate user-generated content. They may also contend that the exclusions are arbitrary.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies in balancing the need for broad coverage to prevent exploitation with the desire to avoid stifling innovation or imposing undue burdens on platforms not directly involved in harmful content distribution.
Section 2(a), amending 18 U.S.C. 2257B(b)(1)
Covered Platform Obligation to Verify User Identity and Age
This section prohibits covered platforms from allowing users to upload pornographic images unless the platform has verified both the user's identity and that the user is at least 18 years old. Acceptable verification methods include adult access codes, digital age certificates, or other Attorney General-approved technologies. Simple self-attestation of age is explicitly deemed insufficient.
Section 2(a), amending 18 U.S.C. 2257B(b)(2)
Covered Platform Obligation to Verify Consent of Depicted Individuals
This is a core provision requiring covered platforms to verify that every individual depicted in a pornographic image was at least 18 years old when the image was created, provided explicit written consent for each sex act shown, and provided explicit written consent for the distribution of that specific image. Platforms must obtain a detailed consent form (to be created/approved by the Attorney General) and valid government-issued identification for each depicted individual, ensuring names, dates of birth, and signatures match.
Section 2(a), amending 18 U.S.C. 2257B(c)
User Obligation to Obtain Consent
This section explicitly states that a user of a covered platform may not upload a pornographic image of an individual to the platform without that individual's consent. Consent is determined in accordance with this new section of law and applicable State law.
Section 2(a), amending 18 U.S.C. 2257B(d) and (e)
Civil Enforcement and Criminal Penalties for Violations
This provision establishes significant penalties. For platforms failing to verify users, the Attorney General can impose civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day per image. For platforms failing to verify participants' consent, aggrieved individuals can sue for $10,000 per day per image or actual damages. Users violating the consent requirement face similar civil liability. Additionally, any person violating this section faces up to 5 years imprisonment for an initial offense, and 2 to 10 years for subsequent offenses, plus fines.
Section 2(b), amending Section 3(a)(3)(B) of the TAKE IT DOWN Act
Requirement to Prevent Reupload of Non-Consensual Images
This provision amends existing law (the TAKE IT DOWN Act) to require platforms not only to remove non-consensual intimate visual depictions but also to actively prevent their reupload. This implies a proactive obligation to use technological means (e.g., hashing, content recognition) to block previously identified violating content from reappearing.
The verification obligations for covered platforms (regarding both users and depicted individuals) apply to any pornographic image uploaded to a covered platform "before, on, or after" the effective date of the Act.
Section 2(a), amending 18 U.S.C. 2257B(b)(3)(B)
Why it matters:While common for new laws to apply to ongoing situations, explicit retroactive application to content uploaded before the law's enactment is a significant legal and practical challenge that could be easily overlooked by a casual reader focusing on future actions.
Case for: Proponents would argue that the harm of non-consensual images persists regardless of when they were uploaded, and victims deserve protection and recourse for existing content. This ensures platforms are incentivized to address their entire content library.
Case against: Opponents would argue that applying these stringent verification requirements retroactively is highly problematic, potentially unconstitutional (ex post facto concerns), and practically impossible for platforms to implement for vast archives of historical user-generated content. It could force platforms to remove massive amounts of content without proper review.
Estimated impact: Potentially massive, requiring platforms to retroactively verify consent for potentially billions of images, or face severe penalties.
The term "pornographic image" includes "any visual depiction of actual or feigned sexually explicit conduct" OR "any intimate visual depiction." The latter includes images where "the naked genitals, anus, pubic area, or post-pubescent female nipple of the individual depicted are visible."
Section 2(a), amending 18 U.S.C. 2257B(a)(4)
Why it matters:Definitions are standard legislative practice, but the breadth of this definition, especially the inclusion of "post-pubescent female nipple," might not be immediately apparent as having significant implications for a casual reader.
Case for: Proponents would argue that a broad definition is necessary to cover the full spectrum of harmful non-consensual content and prevent loopholes. The inclusion of the female nipple, for instance, addresses specific forms of non-consensual sharing that might not otherwise be covered.
Case against: Critics might argue that this definition is excessively broad and could inadvertently capture a vast array of content not typically associated with "pornography" or "exploitation," such as breastfeeding images, artistic nudity, or even medical imagery, leading to over-censorship and First Amendment challenges.
Estimated impact: Could significantly expand the scope of content requiring stringent verification, potentially leading to the removal of a wide range of content from platforms.