Fighting Back: What Bailey Broadrick Is Asking the Court to Do
After months of abuse and humiliation at the hands of her ex-boyfriend, Bailey Broadrick turned to the courts not just for recognition of the harm she suffered—but for meaningful relief that would protect her future, compensate her for what was lost, and deter others from weaponizing intimate images.
In this final installment of our series, we explore the relief Broadrick is seeking under federal law (15 U.S.C. § 6851) and Connecticut state law, including:
-
A permanent injunction to block any future distribution of her private images;
-
Compensatory and punitive damages for the emotional and reputational harm caused; and
-
Attorneys’ fees and costs, as authorized by federal statute.
1. Permanent Injunctive Relief: A Shield Against Future Harm
Broadrick’s first and most urgent request is a permanent injunction—a court order requiring the defendant to cease all further dissemination or publication of the intimate images.
The complaint details a disturbing pattern: repeated uploads, new fake accounts, and online impersonation. Broadrick alleges that the defendant went so far as to register domain names in her name, publishing explicit images along with defamatory statements designed to destroy her reputation.
Under 15 U.S.C. § 6851(b)(1)(B), a federal court must consider granting injunctive relief to prevent further violations. Broadrick is asking the court to:
-
Require the defendant to take down all existing content;
-
Cease any further distribution of her images;
-
Transfer ownership of the domains used to harm her; and
-
Refrain from contacting her in the future.
Courts have wide latitude to fashion tailored injunctive relief in cases like this, and Broadrick’s attorneys have made clear: this isn’t just about punishing the past—it’s about preventing future abuse.
2. Compensatory and Punitive Damages: Accountability in Dollars
Broadrick is also seeking monetary damages, including:
-
General damages for pain and suffering, reputational damage, and mental anguish;
-
Special damages for therapy expenses, lost opportunities, and economic fallout; and
-
Punitive damages, to punish the defendant and deter others from similar misconduct.
Under both federal law and Connecticut state tort law, these forms of relief are appropriate when a defendant’s actions are intentional, malicious, and cause substantial harm.
Federal courts evaluating claims under § 6851 consider both the extent of the distribution and the mental and emotional toll on the victim. Broadrick’s case includes evidence of obsessive conduct, impersonation, and revenge-driven motives. Her legal team argues that this justifies the imposition of substantial punitive damages.
3. Attorney’s Fees and Costs: Empowering Survivors
One of the most powerful features of the federal law is that it shifts the financial burden to the perpetrator.
Under § 6851(b)(3), the court may award “reasonable attorney’s fees and other litigation costs” to the prevailing plaintiff. This provision was designed to ensure that survivors like Broadrick don’t have to choose between justice and financial ruin.
In this case, where the defendant allegedly ignored cease-and-desist letters and evaded service until compelled by a federal bench warrant, an award of attorneys’ fees is not only justified—it’s essential to making Broadrick whole.
Why This Matters
Bailey Broadrick’s lawsuit doesn’t just ask the court to recognize her suffering. It demands real consequences for digital abusers—legal accountability that matches the gravity of the harm.
By seeking a combination of injunctive relief, damages, and attorney’s fees, Broadrick’s legal team is sending a clear message: Survivors deserve safety, dignity, and restitution.
As courts across the country continue to confront the devastating effects of nonconsensual pornography, the outcome of this case could set an important precedent—not just for Broadrick, but for victims nationwide.
