Part 3: A Landmark Lawsuit — How Bailey Broadrick Invoked Federal Law to Fight Revenge Porn
Disclaimer: This article is based on the Verified Complaint filed in Broadrick v. Gilroy, Case No. 3:24-cv-01772-VAB (D. Conn.). All facts discussed remain alleged, and the case is still pending. No finding of liability has been made.
For years, survivors of nonconsensual image abuse had few legal options. State laws were inconsistent. Civil remedies were patchwork. But that changed in 2022 with the passage of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act — and a new provision codified at 15 U.S.C. § 6851: the first federal civil cause of action for nonconsensual disclosure of intimate images.
In Broadrick v. Gilroy, Bailey became one of the first plaintiffs in the country to use it. Her complaint alleges not just emotional devastation, but a deliberate, knowing campaign of digital exploitation — exactly the kind of abuse Congress sought to address with the new statute.
What § 6851 Protects
15 U.S.C. § 6851 allows any identifiable person to sue in federal court if someone discloses “intimate visual depictions” of them without their consent — and does so in interstate or foreign commerce (like uploading to Reddit, Kik, or any website).
The law defines an “intimate visual depiction” as an image or video that shows the person’s:
- Uncovered genitals, anus, or female nipple;
- Display or transfer of sexual fluids;
- Or participation in sexually explicit conduct (real or simulated).
The law also states clearly: consenting to take the photo is not the same as consenting to share it. Even if someone willingly sends an image to a trusted partner, they retain legal control over whether that image is ever made public.
Broadrick’s Case: A Model Application
In her lawsuit, Bailey alleges that Nicholas Gilroy:
- Published nude photos of her on Reddit, Kik, and EroMe — showing her breasts, pubic area, and face;
- Uploaded deepfakes depicting her performing sexual acts she never participated in;
- Posted an image taken without her knowledge while she was asleep and recovering from chemotherapy;
- Disseminated those images alongside her full name and professional identity;
- Explicitly acknowledged that the sharing was “without her consent.”
If proven, these facts satisfy every requirement of the federal statute: nonconsensual disclosure, intimate visual depiction, interstate publication, and identification of the victim.
Damages and Justice Under Federal Law
The statute allows victims like Bailey to recover:
- Actual damages (like emotional distress, professional harm, or reputational loss);
- Or liquidated damages of $150,000 per image;
- Plus attorney’s fees, costs, and injunctive relief.
In Bailey’s case, her complaint seeks statutory damages, a permanent injunction, and a finding that Gilroy acted willfully and maliciously. If successful, this case could set precedent and send a clear message: online abuse has federal consequences.
More Than a Statute — A Signal
15 U.S.C. § 6851 is more than just a legal tool. It’s a signal from Congress that digital abuse is real, and that survivors deserve real justice. Bailey’s case may become a model for how victims nationwide can hold their abusers accountable — even when state laws fail them.
In the next installment, we’ll look at Bailey’s additional claims under Connecticut law — including emotional distress, false light, invasion of privacy, and promissory estoppel. The legal fight is only beginning.
