Part 4: Beyond the Verdict — Permanent Injunctions and Final Judgment in a Federal Revenge Porn Case

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, how the court protected her through emergency orders, and the first federal jury verdict under § 6851.

Part 4 now turns to the post-verdict phase: permanent injunctions and final judgment. While the jury’s decision was a historic milestone, what happens after trial can be just as critical—especially for victims seeking long-term protection from digital abuse.

After trial, the case entered a critical stage: post-trial relief. This includes seeking a permanent injunction, formal entry of final judgment, and enforcing all court-ordered protections. This phase determines whether a survivor’s rights will be meaningfully preserved—and whether the law can stop future harm before it starts.

Why Injunctive Relief Matters Under 15 U.S.C. § 6851

The federal civil revenge porn statute doesn’t just allow for damages—it authorizes powerful injunctive relief. That means the court can enter binding orders prohibiting further misconduct, even beyond the trial.

Following the jury verdict, Doe’s legal team filed a motion for a permanent injunction asking the court to:

• Permanently bar Gipson from distributing, publishing, or possessing any intimate images of Jane Doe
• Order removal of all content from websites, hosting platforms, and storage devices
• Prohibit any future contact, threats, or retaliation against Doe

In cases involving online image abuse, this type of relief is essential. Without court-enforced boundaries, harmful content can be reposted, reshared, or weaponized repeatedly. The permanent injunction requested by Doe’s team seeks to eliminate that threat once and for all.

The Fight for Final Judgment

Alongside the injunction, Doe’s attorneys filed a detailed motion for entry of final judgment following the jury verdict. That motion asks the court to enter:

• The $2.3 million in jury damages (including $2 million in punitive damages)
• An additional $150,000 in liquidated damages under 15 U.S.C. § 6851
• $367,500 in prejudgment interest, based on Texas law and the current prime rate
• An official finding that Doe is the prevailing party, entitled to costs and attorneys’ fees
• Retention of jurisdiction to enforce any injunctive orders

The court has not yet ruled. In the meantime, Gipson has filed a sealed motion for a new trial, challenging the verdict and seeking to reopen the proceedings. As of this writing, that motion is pending.

Why This Phase Is Just as Important as the Trial

While the jury trial made headlines, the post-trial enforcement stage is where survivors either secure lasting protection—or risk ongoing harm. A favorable verdict means little if the defendant continues to harass, repost content, or evade accountability.

That’s why 15 U.S.C. § 6851 explicitly allows courts to grant permanent injunctions and hold defendants in contempt for violating them. This is not just about financial recovery—it’s about control, dignity, and digital safety.

What This Means for Other Victims of Image-Based Abuse

Jane Doe v. Gipson shows that survivors of revenge porn and online sexual abuse can:

• File suit anonymously in federal court
• Win damages for emotional, reputational, and professional harm
• Seek permanent injunctive relief to prevent future publication
• Request costs, attorney fees, and liquidated damages under § 6851

And if the court grants the permanent injunction and enters final judgment, this case may serve as a blueprint for how federal courts should handle similar abuse moving forward.

Next in Part 5: Final Orders and Nationwide Impact

In Part 5, we’ll look at what happens after final judgment is entered—including collection, enforcement, and the lasting national impact of this case for digital privacy and federal revenge porn law.

Are You Being Harmed by Nonconsensual Image Sharing?

If someone has posted or threatened to post explicit content of you without your consent, you may have rights under 15 U.S.C. § 6851. That includes the right to sue in federal court, request a restraining order, and proceed anonymously.

Contact our firm today for a confidential case review. We are one of the first in the country to litigate under this groundbreaking federal statute—and we’re here to help you protect your image and your future.