Part 3: Inside the First Federal Jury Trial Under 15 U.S.C. § 6851 — Justice Delivered

In April 2025, a federal jury in the Western District of Texas delivered a powerful message: victims of nonconsensual image abuse can and will obtain justice under 15 U.S.C. § 6851, the federal civil revenge porn statute. In Jane Doe v. Mark A. Gipson, the jury awarded $2.3 million in damages to a Miami woman whose ex-boyfriend allegedly waged a campaign of digital humiliation after their breakup.

This trial represents the culmination of everything we’ve covered so far in this series. We began by analyzing the first appellate ruling under § 6851, followed with a series introduction, then walked through Doe’s initial complaint and how the court protected her through emergency orders.

The Trial: A First for Federal Revenge Porn Law

This was the first known federal jury trial under 15 U.S.C. § 6851. Presided over by U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman and Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower, the case was heard by a jury of eight over the course of three days in Austin, Texas. Jane Doe was permitted to proceed under pseudonym, and the court sealed explicit exhibits to protect her privacy.

As detailed in the trial filings and exhibits, the case involved far more than just a one-time image disclosure. Doe testified that during a trip, Gipson took intimate photographs that she believed would remain private. When she ended their relationship, he allegedly distributed those images to her family, friends, and coworkers—along with messages falsely claiming that she was a prostitute and a thief.

Digital Harassment and Impersonation

The lawsuit alleged that Gipson escalated his conduct by launching nine different websites to display Doe’s explicit images to the public. He also created a fake Instagram account in her name, posted intimate content there, and used it to “friend” her acquaintances and coworkers—deliberately spreading the images through her own network. Gipson then reportedly reported Doe’s real Instagram account as a fake, resulting in her legitimate profile being taken down.

Evidence Presented at Trial

Doe’s legal team, led by Latham & Watkins LLP, introduced extensive digital evidence to support her claims. Key trial exhibits included:

• Instagram screenshots tied to the fake account(s)
• Emails and iMessages with embedded photos and threats
• Flight receipts and Cash App transactions documenting their relationship timeline
• SMS text messages corroborating harassment

Jane Doe testified to the emotional, reputational, and professional harm she endured. Gipson also took the stand, denying responsibility, attempting to shift blame, and challenging the constitutionality of the statute. The jury was not persuaded.

The Verdict: $2.3 Million for Doe

On April 23, 2025, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. They awarded:

• $300,000 in compensatory damages
• $2,000,000 in punitive damages under Texas state law

The jury did not assess damages under 15 U.S.C. § 6851 because the statute provides for fixed liquidated damages of $150,000. In a post-trial motion, Doe’s attorneys asked the court to add that amount plus $367,500 in prejudgment interest, bringing the total judgment to approximately $2.8 million.

Defense Counsel and the Possibility of Appeal

Gipson was represented at trial by Jerry Lytel Lavespere III of The Texas Spear in Texas City. In a statement to the press, Lavespere confirmed that they are “considering an appeal” and declined to comment further on the outcome.

Why This Case Matters

Doe v. Gipson is a watershed moment in the enforcement of digital privacy rights. It shows that:

• Victims can sue under 15 U.S.C. § 6851 and present their case to a jury
• Federal courts will issue emergency relief, contempt orders, and ultimately enforce judgments
• Massive punitive damages are possible when the conduct is malicious and repeated
• Revenge porn is not a gray area—it is a federal civil rights violation

As reported in Texas Lawyer, Doe’s legal team emphasized that the verdict sends a clear message to offenders—and that this case is just the beginning of how federal courts will handle online sexual abuse.

Coming Next: Final Judgment and Injunctive Relief

In Part 4, we’ll look at Jane Doe’s effort to obtain a permanent injunction and finalize the judgment, and how those remedies can serve as a model for survivors nationwide.

Are You a Victim of Revenge Porn?

If someone is distributing or threatening to publish your intimate images, you may be entitled to relief under 15 U.S.C. § 6851. Our firm is one of the first in the nation litigating these cases and helping victims obtain emergency injunctions, monetary damages, and confidentiality protections.

Contact us today for a confidential consultation. Justice under federal law is possible.