State-by-State Legal Protections Against Non-Consensual Pornography (2025)

Criminal statute: Yes (enacted 2017). Distribution of a private image without consent is a Class A misdemeanor (felony on repeat). It covers knowingly posting or transmitting an intimate image when the person depicted had a reasonable expectation of privacy (consent must be in writing).

Civil remedies: No specific civil statute for revenge porn; victims must rely on general privacy torts or the federal civil cause of action under VAWA 2022.

Right of publicity: Recognized by a recently passed state statute (Alabama enacted a right-of-publicity law in the 2020s).

Online impersonation/harassment: No state-specific online impersonation law (impersonation is only illegal in certain contexts); however, general harassment and Alabama's "sexual extortion" law (covering threats to share images) apply.

Restraining orders: Victims can seek restraining orders or injunctions under harassment or extortion statutes to stop further image distribution (especially if the perpetrator is an ex-partner, qualifying under Alabama's domestic violence protection laws).

Criminal statute: Yes. Alaska addresses non-consensual porn under its harassment and voyeurism laws. It is a crime of Harassment in the 2nd degree to publish a nude image of someone with intent to harass or annoy (a class B misdemeanor). Alaska also criminalizes non-consensual creation/viewing of intimate images under Indecent viewing or production of a picture (penalties range from misdemeanor to felony if minors are involved).

Civil remedies: No specific civil statute. Victims may pursue civil claims under general tort law (e.g. invasion of privacy) but there is no dedicated civil cause for intimate image abuse.

Right of publicity: No statutory right-of-publicity; however, Alaska courts could recognize misappropriation of likeness under common law.

Online impersonation/harassment: Alaska has no specific online impersonation law; online harassment can be prosecuted under general stalking/harassment statutes.

Restraining orders: Yes. victims may obtain protective orders (e.g. stalking or harassment restraining orders) to prevent further dissemination or contact.

Criminal statute: Yes. Unlawful disclosure of intimate images (Ariz. Rev. Stat. §13-1425, passed 2014). It is unlawful to intentionally disclose an identifiable person's nude/sexual image if the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy and the image is disclosed with the intent to harm, harass, intimidate, or threaten the victim. Arizona explicitly states that sending an image to someone does not by itself waive the expectation of privacy. Penalty: Usually a Class 5 felony (upgraded to Class 4 if shared electronically, or downgraded to a Class 1 misdemeanor for merely threatening to disclose without actual disclosure).

Civil remedies: No specific civil statute for revenge porn in Arizona. Victims can sue under general torts (and Arizona law permits punitive damages in privacy violations).

Right of publicity: Arizona has a limited statute for deceased soldiers (military publicity rights, 2007) but no general publicity statute; the right is largely recognized via common law.

Online impersonation/harassment: Arizona does not have a specific online impersonation crime. Harassment online can be addressed under Arizona's harassment/stalking laws.

Restraining orders: Victims may seek an injunction or restraining order (e.g. an order of protection or injunction against harassment) to stop further distribution or contact.

Criminal statute: Yes. Unlawful distribution of an intimate image (Ark. Code §5-26-314, enacted 2015). It criminalizes purposeful distribution of an intimate image of an identifiable person without that person's consent. Arkansas law does not require proof of intent to harm for the basic offense (making it easier to prosecute); however, if the perpetrator had intent to cause physical injury, emotional or reputational harm, or gained financially, it is elevated to a felony. Repeated offenses also increase the penalty (up to Class C felony for multiple violations). Arkansas also separately criminalizes creation/distribution of deepfake sexual images without consent.

Civil remedies: Arkansas has a civil cause of action specifically for deepfakes (Ark. Code §16-118-119), but no explicit civil statute for non-consensual real images. Victims may use common-law privacy torts.

Right of publicity: Yes. Arkansas passed a publicity rights statute recently among the states to do so.

Online impersonation/harassment: No specific online impersonation law; general computer crime and harassment laws apply.

Restraining orders: Available (e.g. a civil harassment order) to prevent further image sharing or contact, as part of Arkansas's protective order statutes for stalking or domestic abuse.

Criminal statute: Yes. Disorderly conduct law (Cal. Penal Code §647(j)(4), enacted 2013, one of the first revenge porn laws). It is a misdemeanor to intentionally distribute an image of another identifiable person's intimate body parts or sexual acts if the distributor knew or should know it would cause serious emotional distress, and the person depicted actually suffers such distress. The law applies when the parties agreed or understood the image was to remain private (or if the image was created or obtained without consent, e.g. hacked or secretly recorded). California also criminalizes creating/distributing deepfake intimate images with the intent to cause harm (with some exceptions for minors).

Civil remedies: Yes. California provides a private right of action (Cal. Civil Code §1708.85, enacted 2014) allowing victims to sue for damages and obtain injunctions. The statute defines "intimate body part" and allows pseudonymous lawsuits to protect victim identity. Courts can award equitable relief (including temporary restraining orders and permanent injunctions against further distribution), and attorney's fees to a prevailing victim.

Right of publicity: Yes. California has a well-developed statutory right of publicity (Cal. Civ. Code §3344) and a post-mortem right (for deceased celebrities). This protects individuals from unauthorized commercial use of their name or image.

Online impersonation/harassment: Yes. California prohibits online impersonation (impersonating someone on the internet to harm, intimidate, or defraud is illegal under Cal. Penal Code §528.5). California is among ~17 states with specific online impersonation laws. Additionally, California's cyber-harassment laws and stalking laws can apply if someone shares images to harass.

Restraining orders: Yes. Victims can obtain civil harassment restraining orders, and California's civil revenge porn law explicitly allows courts to issue injunctions to stop further image sharing.

Criminal statute: Yes. Posting a private image for harassment (Colo. Rev. Stat. §18-7-107, enacted 2014) makes it a crime to disclose or threaten to disclose an intimate image without consent if done with intent to harass/coerce someone or if the distributor knew or should have known the person expected the image to remain private. The law requires the disclosure to have caused harm (physical, emotional, or reputational) to the victim. It's generally a Class 1 misdemeanor, elevated to a felony if the disclosure poses a serious safety threat to the victim or their family. Colorado law also affirms that the depicted individual retains a protectable interest (like authorship) in the image's commercial use.

Civil remedies: Yes. Colorado allows victims to bring a civil action in cases of posting intimate images for pecuniary gain (C.R.S. §18-7-108). Victims can claim injunctive relief and monetary damages (the law specifies statutory damages up to $10,000 or actual damages plus attorney fees).

Right of publicity: Colorado does not have a specific statute, but the state recognizes publicity rights under common law.

Online impersonation/harassment: No specific online impersonation statute in Colorado. However, general criminal impersonation and cybercrime laws would cover certain scenarios. Harassment by electronic means is punishable under Colorado's harassment statute.

Restraining orders: Yes. Victims can seek civil protection orders for stalking/harassment. Colorado law explicitly allows injunctions against further dissemination as a civil remedy, and courts can order images to be taken down.

Criminal statute: Yes. Unlawful dissemination of an intimate image (Conn. Gen. Stat. §53a-189c, enacted 2015). A person is guilty if they intentionally disseminate by any means a photo or video of another person's intimate parts or sexual acts when (1) the person depicted did not consent and understood the image was to remain private, and (2) the victim suffers harm from the disclosure. "Harm" is defined broadly (including emotional distress, reputational injury, etc.). Sharing a private image to one person is a Class A misdemeanor; if shared to multiple people or via an interactive computer service (online), it's a Class D felony.

Civil remedies: Connecticut does not have a specific civil revenge porn statute. However, victims might pursue civil relief under Connecticut's privacy laws or intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Right of publicity: No explicit statute; the right of publicity in Connecticut is recognized via common-law privacy (unauthorized commercial use of one's likeness is actionable as an appropriation tort).

Online impersonation/harassment: Yes. Connecticut is one of the states with an online impersonation law, criminalizing impersonating someone online with intent to harass or harm. The state also has strong cyber-stalking and electronic harassment laws.

Restraining orders: Victims can obtain civil restraining orders against perpetrators (Connecticut allows victims of stalking or sexual harassment to seek court orders to stop such conduct).

Criminal statute: Yes. Delaware's "Violation of privacy" law (11 Del. Code §1335) was amended to cover non-consensual pornography. It is illegal to knowingly disseminate a visual depiction of a person who is nude or engaging in sexual conduct when the distributor knows or should have known it was without the person's consent and that the image was created under circumstances where the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Delaware law explicitly affirms that even if someone consented to creation or gave the image in a private relationship, they retain an expectation of privacy beyond that relationship. Aggravating factors elevate the offense.

Civil remedies: Yes. Delaware adopted the Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act (Title 10 Del. Code, Ch. 78). This gives victims a clear civil cause of action to recover damages and obtain injunctive relief for non-consensual image distribution.

Right of publicity: No specific statute, but Delaware recognizes the right via common law.

Online impersonation/harassment: Delaware is not specifically listed among states with an online impersonation statute. Harassment online is prosecuted under general harassment laws.

Restraining orders: Yes. victims can pursue restraining orders. Delaware law permits protective orders for harassment, and under the civil remedies act, courts can grant injunctions to remove or block images.

Criminal statute: Yes. D.C. criminalized revenge porn in 2015 (D.C. Code §22-3051 et seq.). It prohibits knowingly disclosing a sexual image of another without consent and with intent to harm the person (or knowing that it would cause harm). The offense is a misdemeanor. The law requires that the person depicted had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Civil remedies: Yes. In 2024, D.C. enacted the Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act (D.C. Law 25-268). This provides victims a civil cause of action to sue for damages, injunctions, and attorney fees.

Right of publicity: D.C. does not have a specific right-of-publicity statute. Any publicity rights would be recognized under common law.

Online impersonation/harassment: D.C. has general laws against identity theft and harassment, but no specific "online impersonation" statute.

Restraining orders: Yes. victims in D.C. can seek civil protection orders for stalking, sexual harassment, or other forms of abuse, which can include provisions stopping the distribution of images.

Criminal statute: Yes. Sexual Cyberharassment (Fla. Stat. §784.049, enacted 2015). It is a first-degree misdemeanor to willfully and maliciously sexually cyberharass someone, defined as publishing a sexually explicit image of a person that contains or conveys their identity, without their consent, for no legitimate purpose, causing substantial emotional distress (repeat violations are felonies).

Civil remedies: Yes. Florida's statute explicitly allows victims to bring a civil lawsuit for sexual cyberharassment. An aggrieved person may obtain injunctive relief, as well as monetary damages (including punitive damages and attorney fees).

Right of publicity: Yes. Florida has a statutory right of publicity (Fla. Stat. §540.08) protecting individuals against unauthorized commercial use of their name or likeness. This right is descendible (survives death) for a period.

Online impersonation/harassment: Yes. Florida is among the states with laws addressing online impersonation. Impersonating someone on the internet with intent to harm or intimidate can fall under Florida's cyberstalking or fraud statutes.

Restraining orders: Yes. victims can seek injunctions for protection against cyberstalking or repeat harassment. Florida courts can issue restraining orders to prevent any further harassment.

Criminal statute: Yes. Sexual Extortion and Revenge Porn is addressed by Georgia Code §16-11-90 (enacted 2014). It forbids knowingly posting or electronically sending a nude or sexually explicit image of someone without their consent and with the intent to cause harm (such as embarrassment or financial loss) to the depicted person. It's generally a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature, with higher penalties if the victim is a minor.

Civil remedies: No specific civil revenge porn statute in Georgia. However, victims may sue under Georgia's common-law privacy torts.

Right of publicity: Georgia has no statutory right of publicity, but it is recognized via common law.

Online impersonation/harassment: No specific online impersonation criminal law in Georgia. Georgia does have a general harassment law and recently strengthened cyberstalking laws.

Restraining orders: Yes. victims can seek a stalking protective order or restraining order in civil court.

Criminal statute: Yes. Violation of Privacy in the First Degree (Haw. Rev. Stat. §711-1110.9) makes it a felony to intentionally disclose an image or video of another person's intimate parts or sexual conduct without consent, knowing the person depicted is identifiable, if the image was obtained or created under circumstances where the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Hawaii's law does not require proof of intent to harass.

Civil remedies: No specific civil statute in Hawaii for revenge porn. Victims would rely on common law privacy claims.

Right of publicity: Hawaii has a statutory publicity rights law (Haw. Rev. Stat. §482P) for deceased persons. For living persons, Hawaii largely uses common law/privacy rights.

Online impersonation/harassment: Yes. Hawaii is listed among states with laws referring to online impersonation. Hawaii added provisions to its harassment law to encompass certain online impersonation acts in 2018.

Restraining orders: Yes. Hawaii's harassment restraining order laws allow victims to seek an order prohibiting someone from further harassment.

Criminal statute: Yes. Idaho passed a revenge porn law in 2018 (Idaho Code §18-6609). It criminalizes the non-consensual dissemination of intimate images when the person knew or should have known the victim had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Violations are generally misdemeanors; if the victim is a minor or the offender has prior convictions, penalties increase.

Civil remedies: No specific civil cause of action in Idaho for unauthorized image distribution. Victims may have recourse through civil claims like invasion of privacy or intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Right of publicity: Idaho does not have a statute and has limited case law on publicity rights.

Online impersonation/harassment: No specific Idaho law for online impersonation.

Restraining orders: Yes. victims can seek civil protection orders for stalking/harassment. Idaho's law allows "malicious harassment" injunctions.

Criminal statute: Yes. Non-Consensual Dissemination of Private Sexual Images (720 ILCS 5/11-23.5, enacted 2015). It is a felony in Illinois to intentionally disseminate an image of another person who is identifiable and engaged in sexual conduct or with exposed intimate parts if the image was obtained under circumstances where a reasonable person would understand it was to remain private. Penalty is a Class 4 felony.

Civil remedies: Yes. Illinois created a civil cause of action under the Civil Remedies for Nonconsensual Dissemination of Private Sexual Images Act (740 ILCS 190/). Victims can sue for damages, and the statute provides for punitive damages and attorney fees. The law permits pseudonymous filings.

Right of publicity: Yes. Illinois has a statutory Right of Publicity Act (765 ILCS 1075/). It recognizes individuals' rights to control commercial use of their identity, and it survives 50 years after death.

Online impersonation/harassment: Yes. It is illegal to impersonate someone online or through electronic communication with intent to harm, intimidate, threaten, or defraud. Illinois also has robust cyberstalking statutes.

Restraining orders: Yes. Illinois law allows victims to get civil no-contact orders for sexual offenses. Under the civil NDII Act, victims can seek injunctive relief to have images removed.

Criminal statute: Yes. Unlawful Distribution of an Intimate Image (Ind. Code §35-45-4-8, enacted 2019). It makes it a Class A misdemeanor to distribute a private sexual image of someone identifiable without their consent, knowing or recklessly ignoring that the person in the image expects it to remain private. Penalties elevate to a felony if the perpetrator has prior convictions.

Civil remedies: Yes. Indiana enacted a civil statute in 2022 (Ind. Code §34-21.5-3-1) giving victims a right to sue for non-consensual image distribution. The law allows victims to recover actual damages and expressly states that a victim has a civil cause of action for "defamation per se or invasion of privacy."

Right of publicity: Yes. Indiana has one of the strongest publicity rights statutes (Ind. Code §32-36-1). It provides broad protection for a person's name and likeness, including after death (personality rights last 100 years post-mortem).

Online impersonation/harassment: No specific online impersonation criminal law in Indiana. Indiana does criminalize "harassment" via electronic means.

Restraining orders: Yes. victims can obtain civil protective orders for harassment or stalking. Indiana's civil courts can issue injunctions to prevent further dissemination of images.

Criminal statute: Yes. Kansas has a law against revenge porn (K.S.A. §21-6101(a)(8), passed 2016) which makes it illegal to disseminate images of another who is nude or engaged in sexual activity without consent. It's a Class A person misdemeanor on first offense (felony on subsequent). Note: In 2023-2025 there have been legal challenges; a Kansas court found parts of the law unconstitutionally overbroad. Legislators are expected to amend the law.

Civil remedies: No specific civil statute in Kansas. Victims must use common-law privacy torts.

Right of publicity: No statute; any publicity rights would come from common law.

Online impersonation/harassment: Not specifically. Kansas has general criminal impersonation and identity theft laws.

Restraining orders: Yes. victims can seek protection-from-stalking orders.

Criminal statute: Yes. "Distribution of sexually explicit images without consent" law (KRS §531.120, enacted 2018) criminalizes intentional distribution of explicit images of an identifiable person without their consent, if the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. It is a Class A misdemeanor for first offense (and Class D felony for subsequent offenses).

Civil remedies: No state civil revenge porn law in Kentucky. Victims can pursue civil action under common law.

Right of publicity: Yes. Kentucky has a statute (KRS §391.170) mainly for deceased individuals' publicity rights.

Online impersonation/harassment: No specific law.

Restraining orders: Yes. protective orders can be obtained through interpersonal protective orders or harassment injunctions.

Criminal statute: Yes. Nonconsensual disclosure of a private image (La. R.S. §14:283.2, enacted 2015). It's illegal to intentionally disclose an image without consent, if the person is identifiable and the offender knew or should have known the person expected privacy. It requires an intent to harass or cause emotional distress. Penalty: misdemeanor (up to 2 years and fines).

Civil remedies: Louisiana does not have a specific civil revenge porn statute. Victims may bring civil suits under Louisiana's privacy rights.

Right of publicity: Yes. Louisiana passed a right of publicity statute in 2022 (La. R.S. §51:470) granting individuals property rights in their name, voice, image, etc.

Online impersonation/harassment: Yes. Louisiana criminal law includes an offense for online impersonation. Louisiana also specifically criminalized the creation/distribution of deepfake sexual images in 2023.

Restraining orders: Yes. victims can seek protective orders. Louisiana's domestic abuse statutes cover threats to release private images as a form of abuse.

Criminal statute: Yes. Unauthorized dissemination of certain private images law (17-A M.R.S. §511-A, enacted 2015) makes it a Class D crime to intentionally disseminate a photograph or video of a person's intimate parts or sexual act when the person is identifiable, did not consent to the dissemination, and had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Civil remedies: No specific civil cause in Maine. A victim would rely on Maine's common law privacy torts.

Right of publicity: Maine has no statute and little case law on publicity rights.

Online impersonation/harassment: Not specifically. Maine has a cyber harassment law and recently criminalized certain deepfake pornography in 2023.

Restraining orders: Yes. Maine law allows Protection from Harassment orders. Victims of image-based harassment can petition the court for an order.

Criminal statute: Yes. Nonconsensual pornography (Maryland Criminal Law §3-809, enacted 2014). It prohibits intentionally distributing a visual representation of someone's intimate parts or sexual activity knowing the person did not consent. Maryland does not require proof of intent to harm. First offense is a misdemeanor (up to 2 years jail), subsequent offense a felony.

Civil remedies: No specific civil statute in Maryland for revenge porn. Victims may sue under Maryland's common law torts.

Right of publicity: No Maryland statute; the state courts have acknowledged a common-law right of publicity in limited cases.

Online impersonation/harassment: Maryland does not have a dedicated online impersonation law. It does have a broad harassment statute and a separate law against using someone's name or email to create a website or email for malicious purposes.

Restraining orders: Yes. Maryland's peace and protective orders can cover misuse of images. In 2019, Maryland expanded its definition of abuse for protective orders to include revenge porn activities in domestic situations.

Criminal statute: Yes. Massachusetts was one of the last states to enact a revenge porn law, passing it in 2024 (becoming the 49th state). The new law criminalizes the non-consensual distribution of nude/sexual images. It also explicitly covers deepfakes and "synthetic media" in intimate image abuse. Key criteria: Distributing an identifiable person's intimate image without consent, with an intent to harm or cause distress, is outlawed.

Civil remedies: Massachusetts allows victims to sue under existing privacy law (Mass. Gen. Laws Ch.214 §1B provides a right of privacy). The new law may have introduced a specific civil injunction mechanism.

Right of publicity: Massachusetts has no statute. A common-law right of publicity had long been proposed but not enacted. Nevertheless, Massachusetts recognizes privacy rights via common law.

Online impersonation/harassment: Yes. In 2017 Massachusetts passed a law against online impersonation (making it a crime to impersonate someone on social media/email with intent to harass or defraud). The new 2024 legislation also broadened harassment statutes.

Restraining orders: Yes. The 2024 law explicitly added revenge porn and coercive control to the definition of abuse for which one can get a domestic restraining order. Victims can also seek Harassment Prevention Orders.

Criminal statute: Yes. Unlawfully Posting Message and Distribution of Sexually Explicit Visual Material laws (MCL §750.145e-f, enacted 2016). It's a misdemeanor to knowingly post a sexually explicit image of someone without consent if the person is identifiable and the poster intended to threaten, coerce, or intimidate the person. Michigan thus requires an intent element. Penalties escalate if the victim suffers injury or if the offender has prior convictions.

Civil remedies: No specific civil statute in Michigan. Victims can use common-law remedies. Michigan recognizes the tort of public disclosure of private facts.

Right of publicity: No statute; Michigan has recognized a common-law right of publicity in certain cases.

Online impersonation/harassment: Not a specific statute. Michigan has laws against using a computer/internet to threaten or harass.

Restraining orders: Yes. victims can pursue Personal Protection Orders (PPOs) for stalking or cyberstalking. Michigan courts have issued PPOs in cases of non-consensual image sharing.

Criminal statute: Yes. Non-Consensual Dissemination of Private Sexual Images (Minn. Stat. §617.261, enacted 2016). It criminalizes intentionally disseminating an image of someone who is identifiable, depicted in sexual acts or nude, when the actor knows or should know the person did not consent and had a reasonable expectation of privacy. No intent-to-harm requirement. It's a gross misdemeanor for first offense; subsequent or egregious cases can be felonies.

Civil remedies: Yes. Minnesota provides a civil cause of action (Minn. Stat. §604.31). A victim may recover general and special damages, minimum damages of $1,000, and attorney fees. The law also allows punitive damages for willful or reckless disregard.

Right of publicity: No statute; but Minnesota has common-law publicity rights.

Online impersonation/harassment: Not specifically. Minnesota does not list an online impersonation law among those states.

Restraining orders: Yes. Minnesota allows Harassment Restraining Orders. Courts have granted HROs in revenge porn cases.

Criminal statute: Yes. Mississippi was the 48th state to outlaw revenge porn (Miss. Code §97-29-64.1, enacted 2023). This law makes it a misdemeanor to disclose or threaten to disclose any photo, video, or image of another person's intimate parts or sexual acts without consent. Notably, Mississippi explicitly includes deepfakes in its definition. Repeat offenses can be felonies.

Civil remedies: Yes. the Mississippi statute provides civil relief. A victim can file a lawsuit for damages, injunctive relief, or other appropriate relief against the violator.

Right of publicity: No dedicated statute; any publicity rights would be through common law.

Online impersonation/harassment: Yes. Mississippi enacted an online impersonation law (Miss. Code §97-45-33, effective 2014) making it a crime to impersonate someone online with intent to harm, intimidate, threaten, or defraud.

Restraining orders: Yes. the revenge porn law itself allows injunctions, and victims can seek general restraining orders.

Criminal statute: Yes. Nonconsensual Dissemination of Private Sexual Images law (Mo. Rev. Stat. §573.110, enacted 2018) makes it a crime to knowingly disseminate an image of another person's intimate parts or sexual acts without their consent. Missouri classifies a first offense as a Class D felony (more severe than many states), and increases to Class C felony for repeat or if done for profit.

Civil remedies: Yes. Missouri law allows civil action. The statute provides that a victim "has a civil cause of action" against anyone who distributes the images, and they can sue for damages and attorney fees.

Right of publicity: Yes. Missouri recognizes publicity rights via common law.

Online impersonation/harassment: Not specifically. Missouri has no separate online impersonation law on the books.

Restraining orders: Yes. victims can seek restraining orders under Missouri's Adult Abuse Act. Missouri also has a "Stalking protection order."

Criminal statute: Yes. Montana passed a revenge porn law in 2017 (Mont. Code Ann. §45-8-213). It prohibits the intentional posting or distribution of a visual image of another person's intimate body parts without consent. Montana requires an "intent to cause emotional distress" to the victim. making it a misdemeanor on first offense. If the offender profits from it or has priors, it can become a felony.

Civil remedies: No specific statute in Montana. Victims may use common law. Montana recognizes the privacy tort of public disclosure.

Right of publicity: No statute; Montana would treat it under common law if at all.

Online impersonation/harassment: Not specifically. Montana's laws against impersonation are limited to impersonating public officials or fraud.

Restraining orders: Yes. victims can obtain Orders of Protection if the conduct fits stalking or harassment.

Criminal statute: Yes. Distribution of Intimate Image law (Neb. Rev. Stat. §28-311.08, enacted 2015) makes it a crime to intentionally distribute an intimate image of an identifiable person without their consent and with the intent to harass, intimidate, threaten, or coerce. Nebraska requires an intent to harm element. It's a misdemeanor for first offense; a subsequent offense can be a felony.

Civil remedies: Yes. Nebraska adopted a version of the Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act (Neb. Rev. Stat. §25-3501 et seq., enacted 2022). Victims can seek damages (including $10,000 statutory or actual damages), injunctive relief, and attorney fees.

Right of publicity: Yes. Nebraska has a statute (Neb. Rev. Stat. §20-202) protecting a person's name, picture, or portrait from commercial use without consent.

Online impersonation/harassment: No specific law in Nebraska for online impersonation.

Restraining orders: Yes. Nebraska allows victims to obtain harassment protection orders.

Criminal statute: Yes. Unlawful Dissemination of Intimate Image law (Nev. Rev. Stat. §200.780, enacted 2015) makes it a gross misdemeanor to intentionally disseminate an intimate image of another person without consent. Nevada does not require intent to harm; the act of non-consensual distribution is enough.

Civil remedies: No specific civil statute in Nevada. Victims can consider civil suits under the common law privacy tort.

Right of publicity: Yes. Nevada has a statute (Nev. Rev. Stat. §597.770 et seq.) giving individuals property rights in their name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, including 50 years after death.

Online impersonation/harassment: Not specifically listed among impersonation law states. Nevada has strong identity theft laws.

Restraining orders: Yes. Nevada's courts can issue restraining orders against harassment. Nevada's revenge porn criminal statute allows courts to order the seizure or destruction of the offending images upon conviction.

Criminal statute: Yes. New Hampshire passed a law in 2016 (RSA §644:9-a) making it a misdemeanor to disseminate private sexual images of another person without consent and with intent to harass, intimidate or threaten the person.

Civil remedies: No specific civil statute. Victims would rely on common law in New Hampshire.

Right of publicity: No statute; but NH has a statute against unauthorized commercial use of a person's identity in advertising without consent (RSA 359-L), which effectively functions similar to a right of publicity for advertising contexts.

Online impersonation/harassment: Not specifically. New Hampshire uses general fraud statutes and harassment laws.

Restraining orders: Yes. victims can pursue civil stalking petitions.

Criminal statute: Yes. New Jersey's Invasion of Privacy law (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9) has been in effect since 2004 (making NJ one of the first to address revenge porn). It's a crime of the 4th degree (felony) in NJ. There is no requirement of proving intent to harm. it's enough that the disclosure was unprivileged and non-consensual.

Civil remedies: Yes. New Jersey updated its laws in 2019 to explicitly allow a civil cause of action. Under N.J. Stat. §2A:58D-6, a victim can sue for at least $1,000 in liquidated damages per image or actual damages, plus punitive damages and attorney fees.

Right of publicity: No standalone statute, but common law right of publicity is recognized.

Online impersonation/harassment: Yes. In 2014, NJ passed a law criminalizing impersonating someone online or via text for the purpose of harassment or fraud.

Restraining orders: Yes. New Jersey allows victims of cyber-harassment or stalking to obtain restraining orders. In 2016, NJ expanded its Domestic Violence Act to include "cyber-harassment."

Criminal statute: Yes. Unauthorized distribution of sensitive images (N.M. Stat. §30-37A-1, enacted 2015). New Mexico's law is strict: it makes it a misdemeanor to distribute or publish a sensitive intimate image without consent if it's done with the intent to harass, humiliate or intimidate the person. NM requires intent to torment and actual serious distress. A second offense is a fourth-degree felony.

Civil remedies: No specific civil statute in New Mexico. Victims would turn to common law.

Right of publicity: No statute; New Mexico acknowledges a limited common-law right of publicity.

Online impersonation/harassment: Not specifically. New Mexico has laws against impersonating an officer but no special online impersonation law for private individuals.

Restraining orders: Yes. victims can seek harassment restraining orders.

Criminal statute: Yes. Unlawful dissemination or publication of an intimate image (N.Y. Penal Law §245.15, enacted 2019). New York's law requires that the offender intend to cause harm to the person's emotional, financial or physical welfare. It's a Class A misdemeanor. New York lists exceptions for images that serve the public interest, law enforcement, etc.

Civil remedies: Yes. Under N.Y. Civil Rights Law §52-b, a victim has a private right of action for injunction and damages. The law lets victims sue for removal of the images. New York also passed §52-c in 2020 to address "deepfakes," giving victims a cause of action if someone creates and/or disseminates a fake sexual image of them.

Right of publicity: New York historically had a privacy law (Civil Rights Law §§50-51) which prohibits commercial use without consent. In 2021, New York enacted a post-mortem right of publicity.

Online impersonation/harassment: Yes. New York has various laws that cover impersonation by electronic means, and NY's digital impersonation law (2023) makes it illegal to impersonate someone online to cause financial or reputational harm.

Restraining orders: Yes. Victims can get court orders under the civil law §52-b to have content removed. If the context is domestic, victims can seek an Order of Protection in Family Court.

Criminal statute: Yes. Disclosure of private images (N.C. Gen. Stat. §14-190.5A, enacted 2015). It makes it illegal to knowingly disclose an image with the intent to coerce, harass, intimidate, demean, humiliate, or cause financial loss. North Carolina has a strong intent requirement. It's a Class H felony in most cases.

Civil remedies: No specific civil statute in North Carolina yet. However, courts do recognize civil claims under common law.

Right of publicity: North Carolina does not have a statute.

Online impersonation/harassment: Yes. North Carolina is listed as one of the 17 states with an online impersonation law. NC made it a crime (in 2012) to impersonate someone on the internet to harass or intimidate.

Restraining orders: Yes. victims can seek civil no-contact orders. NC courts have included revenge porn as an act of domestic violence.

Criminal statute: Yes. Nonconsensual Dissemination of Private Sexual Images law (N.D. Cent. Code §12.1-17-07.2, enacted 2017) criminalizes intentionally disseminating a nude or sexual image of another without their consent. It's a class A misdemeanor. No requirement of intent to harm.

Civil remedies: No specific statute yet. North Dakota has considered the uniform act but has not codified it as of 2025.

Right of publicity: No statute; ND has minimal case law on this.

Online impersonation/harassment: Not specifically. North Dakota doesn't list an online impersonation law.

Restraining orders: Yes. North Dakota allows disorderly conduct restraining orders.

Criminal statute: Yes. Nonconsensual Dissemination of Private Sexual Images law (O.R.C. §2917.211, enacted 2018) makes it a misdemeanor to distribute an image without consent if the offender knew the person had an expectation of privacy. Ohio's law does not explicitly require an intent to harm. Penalty is a first-degree misdemeanor.

Civil remedies: No dedicated civil statute in Ohio. However, Ohio courts have allowed civil suits using common-law torts.

Right of publicity: Yes. Ohio has a statutory right of publicity (Ohio Rev. Code §2741) enacted in 1999. It's descendible (lasting 60 years after death).

Online impersonation/harassment: No specific law.

Restraining orders: Yes. Ohio has Civil Stalking Protection Orders, which cover harassment.

Criminal statute: Yes. Nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images law (21 O.S. §1040.13b, enacted 2016) makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly disseminate an image without consent. Oklahoma's law requires that the person acted with "intent to harass, intimidate or coerce" the victim. Penalty is up to one year jail.

Civil remedies: No specific statute in Oklahoma for civil action. Victims may attempt civil suits using privacy torts.

Right of publicity: Yes. Oklahoma has a statutory right of publicity (Okla. Stat. Tit. 12, §1448) protecting deceased personalities and living persons.

Online impersonation/harassment: Yes. Oklahoma is listed among states with an online impersonation law.

Restraining orders: Yes. victims can obtain protective orders for harassment. Oklahoma's protective order statutes were expanded to include victims of "digital harassment."

Criminal statute: Yes. Unlawful Dissemination of an Intimate Image (ORS §163.472, enacted 2015) prohibits knowingly disseminating an image without consent if the person knew or should have known the person depicted did not consent. Oregon's law is a Class A misdemeanor. Oregon does not require proof of intent to harass.

Civil remedies: No standalone statute yet. Oregon has robust privacy tort law and victims have won significant damages in civil cases using privacy and IIED claims.

Right of publicity: Yes. Oregon recognizes a common-law right of publicity.

Online impersonation/harassment: Not specifically. Oregon addresses online harassment through its telecommunication harassment law.

Restraining orders: Yes. Oregon has a Stalking Protective Order (SPO) process. Oregon recently created a new kind of protective order for sexual assault/abuse survivors.

Criminal statute: Yes. Unlawful dissemination of intimate image (18 Pa. C.S. §3131, enacted 2014). It's a misdemeanor to knowingly or intentionally disseminate an image without consent. PA does not require intent to harass. A first offense is a second-degree misdemeanor; if the victim is a minor, it can be a first-degree misdemeanor.

Civil remedies: No specific civil statute in Pennsylvania for revenge porn. PA victims have had some success suing under common law.

Right of publicity: Pennsylvania has a statutory publicity rights law (42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §8316, enacted 1984).

Online impersonation/harassment: Not specifically enumerated. PA tackles online impersonation through identity theft statutes.

Restraining orders: Yes. Pennsylvania's Protection From Abuse (PFA) orders in domestic situations can include provisions to stop disseminating images.

Criminal statute: Yes. "Unauthorized Dissemination of Indecent Material" law (R.I. Gen. Laws §11-64-3, enacted 2016) makes it a misdemeanor to electronically disseminate any visual image without consent when the person is identifiable. It does not require an intent to harass. Second or subsequent offenses are felonies.

Civil remedies: No specific civil statute in RI. Victims can sue under common law privacy.

Right of publicity: Yes. Rhode Island has a statute (R.I. Gen. Laws §9-1-28) that provides a right to sue for use of name, portrait, or picture for advertising or trade without consent.

Online impersonation/harassment: Yes. Rhode Island is noted as having an online impersonation law. In 2014, RI passed a law criminalizing online impersonation with intent to harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten.

Restraining orders: Yes. victims can utilize Rhode Island's District Court restraining order process for harassment.

Criminal statute: Yes. South Carolina was the last state to criminalize revenge porn (its law was enacted in 2024, effective July 2024). The law makes it a crime to willfully post or distribute a sexually explicit image of someone without consent. It's classified as a misdemeanor on first offense and a felony for subsequent offenses or if the victim is a minor. SC's law likely requires an intent to harm or knowledge of likely harm.

Civil remedies: South Carolina's 2024 law does not expressly include a civil cause of action. Victims would need to use common law.

Right of publicity: South Carolina passed a statutory right of publicity in 2022 (S.C. Code §39-75-10 et seq.). This grants individuals a property right in their identity for commercial use and is descendible (70 years after death).

Online impersonation/harassment: Not specifically. South Carolina does not have an online impersonation statute yet.

Restraining orders: Yes. South Carolina allows restraining orders for harassment/stalking via Magistrate's court.

Criminal statute: Yes. South Dakota's Invasion of privacy law (S.D. Codified Laws §22-21-4, enacted 2014) covers revenge porn. It is a misdemeanor to distribute any photograph or recording of someone's intimate parts without consent. SD does not require an intent to harm. SD also outlawed deepfake pornography in 2020.

Civil remedies: No specific civil statute in South Dakota. Victims can turn to common law.

Right of publicity: Yes. South Dakota passed a Right of Publicity law in 2022 (S.D. Codified Laws §21-64 et seq.). It protects individuals' names, voices, signatures, photographs, and likenesses from unauthorized commercial use for 50 years after death.

Online impersonation/harassment: Not specifically. South Dakota has laws against identity theft and impersonating officials.

Restraining orders: Yes. South Dakota allows for protection orders for stalking or physical injury threats.

Criminal statute: Yes. Unlawful Exposure law (Tenn. Code Ann. §39-17-318, enacted 2016) makes it a crime to knowingly share an image without consent if the person depicted did not consent and had a reasonable expectation of privacy. It's a Class A misdemeanor. Tennessee also separately criminalizes "extortion by dissemination" (which is a felony).

Civil remedies: No specific civil revenge porn statute, though Tennessee has strong common-law privacy protections.

Right of publicity: Yes. Tennessee has a statute (Tenn. Code §47-25-1101 et seq., the Personal Rights Protection Act). It's one of the most robust publicity rights laws, recently updated in 2024 to the "Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Security Act" to address AI use of likeness.

Online impersonation/harassment: Not specifically a separate crime. Tennessee is not listed in the 17 states explicitly.

Restraining orders: Yes. Tennessee courts can issue Orders of Protection for stalking/harassment.

Criminal statute: Yes. Unlawful Disclosure or Promotion of Intimate Visual Material (Tex. Penal Code §21.16, enacted 2015, amended 2017). Texas law makes it a crime to disclose images without consent with intent to harm the depicted person. Penalty: Class A misdemeanor. Texas also separately outlawed deepfake pornography in 2019 (§21.19).

Civil remedies: Yes. Texas law allows for civil lawsuits against perpetrators. A victim can recover actual damages (or $1,000 minimum), plus potentially discretionary damages and attorney fees.

Right of publicity: Yes. Texas has a statute (Tex. Property Code §26.001 et seq.) protecting a person's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness for 50 years after death.

Online impersonation/harassment: Yes. Texas was one of the first states with an online impersonation law (Tex. Penal Code §33.07, enacted 2009). It's illegal to use someone's name or persona online without consent and with intent to harm, defraud, intimidate, or threaten.

Restraining orders: Yes. Texas victims can seek protective orders if the conduct fits stalking or harassment. Under the civil cause, a court can order injunctive relief.

Criminal statute: Yes. Distribution of an intimate image law (Utah Code §76-5b-203, enacted 2017) makes it a Class A misdemeanor to distribute or sell an intimate image without consent. Utah does not explicitly require intent to harm. Utah also amended definitions to include "counterfeit intimate images" (deepfakes) in 2023.

Civil remedies: No standalone statute in Utah for civil action as of 2025. Victims can sue via privacy tort.

Right of publicity: Yes. Utah has a statutory right of publicity (Utah Code §45-3-1 et seq.) enacted in 1981, including a post-mortem right (for 100 years after death).

Online impersonation/harassment: Yes. Utah Code §76-9-203 (enacted 2017) makes it a crime to impersonate someone on social networking sites or via email with intent to harm, defraud, intimidate, or threaten.

Restraining orders: Yes. Utah has stalking injunctions and protective orders.

Criminal statute: Yes. Disclosure of Sexually Explicit Images Without Consent law (13 V.S.A. §2606, enacted 2015) criminalizes knowingly disclosing a sexual image without consent and with the intent to harm the person (or with reckless disregard for the harm). It's a misdemeanor punishable by up to 2 years. The Vermont Supreme Court upheld it.

Civil remedies: No specific civil statute in Vermont. Victims may use common law.

Right of publicity: No statute; Vermont would handle via common law privacy.

Online impersonation/harassment: Not specifically. Vermont has laws against electronic stalking.

Restraining orders: Yes. Relief From Stalking orders are available.

Criminal statute: Yes. Unlawful dissemination or sale of images of another (Va. Code §18.2-386.2, enacted 2014). It's a Class 1 misdemeanor to maliciously or with intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate disseminate an image of another without consent. Virginia's law explicitly requires malicious intent or intent to harass.

Civil remedies: Yes. In 2020 Virginia adopted a law that allows civil injunctions for victims: Va. Code §8.01-42.5 provides a right to sue for injunctive relief and damages (including punitive).

Right of publicity: Yes. Virginia has a statute (Va. Code §8.01-40(A)) that gives individuals the right to prevent unauthorized use of their name or picture for advertising. Additionally, in 2020, Virginia passed a post-mortem right of publicity for 20 years after death.

Online impersonation/harassment: Not a standalone law. Virginia recently addressed deepfake porn of actual persons (criminalized in 2019).

Restraining orders: Yes. victims can seek a civil injunction. A protective order under domestic violence statutes can also be sought.

Criminal statute: Yes. Disclosing intimate images (Wash. Rev. Code §9A.86.010, enacted 2017). It's a gross misdemeanor to knowingly disclose an intimate image without consent where the disclosure harms the person. Washington does not require a separate intent to harass. A second offense becomes a Class C felony.

Civil remedies: Yes. The statute provides that victims may bring a civil cause of action and recover actual damages (with a $10,000 minimum), plus potentially punitive damages and attorney fees.

Right of publicity: Yes. Washington has a statute (RCW 63.60.010 et seq., the Washington Personality Rights Act).

Online impersonation/harassment: Yes. Washington criminalized electronic impersonation in 2020 (RCW 9.61.260 update). WA also has laws against deepfake election misinformation and some deepfake pornography.

Restraining orders: Yes. Washington has anti-harassment protection orders. In 2022, WA revamped its civil protection order system to cover stalking and cyber harassment.

Criminal statute: Yes. Distribution of intimate images law (W. Va. Code §61-8-28a, enacted 2019) makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly or intentionally distribute an intimate image without consent, with the intent to harass, intimidate, or threaten. Penalty: up to 1 year jail.

Civil remedies: No specific civil statute. West Virginia courts might recognize a tort claim under privacy law.

Right of publicity: No statute; WV likely acknowledges a limited common-law right.

Online impersonation/harassment: Not specifically. West Virginia addresses online harassment via its stalking statute.

Restraining orders: Yes. victims can seek injunctions or personal safety orders. WV passed a law allowing for a civil injunction specifically for stalking or harassment (Personal Safety Order Act).

Criminal statute: Yes. Wisconsin's Statute 942.09(3m) (amended in 2014) makes it a Class A misdemeanor to publish or post a private representation of a person's nudity without consent if the distributor intends to cause harm. Repeat offenses against the same victim can be a felony.

Civil remedies: No specific civil revenge porn statute in Wisconsin. However, Wisconsin's privacy statute (§995.50) that creates a right of privacy. including unreasonable publicity of private life as a tort. likely covers revenge porn.

Right of publicity: Yes. Wisconsin's privacy statute (§995.50) doubles as a limited right-of-publicity law by prohibiting use of a person's name, portrait, or picture for advertising or trade without consent.

Online impersonation/harassment: Not a specific crime. Wisconsin uses general unlawful use of computerized communication systems statutes.

Restraining orders: Yes. Wisconsin allows harassment restraining orders under Wis. Stat. §813.125. Judges can order the perpetrator to cease posting or sharing images.

Criminal statute: Yes. "Sexual Intrusion. Unauthorized Recording or Distribution" law (Wyo. Stat. §6-4-306, enacted 2018) criminalizes disseminating any intimate image without consent. It's a misdemeanor (up to 6 months and a fine). If done for profit or if the victim is a minor, penalties stiffen. No explicit "intent to harass" required.

Civil remedies: No specific civil statute in Wyoming. Victims would need to rely on common law.

Right of publicity: No statute; Wyoming has not been a state with much publicity litigation.

Online impersonation/harassment: Yes. Wyoming passed an online impersonation crime in 2019, making it illegal to impersonate someone on social media or electronic communications with intent to harass or threaten.

Restraining orders: Yes. Wyoming's Stalking Protection Order law could apply. Wyoming also has a general injunction statute.