In the first installment of this series, we introduced you to Doe v. Parsons, a disturbing case of hidden-camera exploitation and revenge porn that led to a federal civil judgment for $300,000 in damages. But how did a victim of intimate image abuse obtain such a swift and powerful remedy in federal court?
The answer lies in a landmark federal statute: 15 U.S.C. § 6851, part of the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization signed into law in 2022. This relatively new civil remedy is already transforming how survivors of digital sexual abuse seek justice.
What Does 15 U.S.C. § 6851 Do?
15 U.S.C. § 6851 creates a private right of action for individuals whose intimate images are disclosed without consent, in or affecting interstate commerce. The law allows survivors to sue for:
-
Liquidated damages of up to $150,000 per image
-
Attorney’s fees and costs
-
Permanent injunctive relief to stop further disclosure
In other words, it gives victims real teeth to enforce their privacy and reclaim control from abusers.
The Legal Test Under § 6851
To prevail under 15 U.S.C. § 6851(b)(1)(A), a plaintiff must prove four key elements:
-
An “intimate visual depiction” of the individual exists;
-
The depiction was disclosed in or using means of interstate commerce (e.g., online);
-
The individual did not consent to the disclosure; and
-
The defendant knew or recklessly disregarded that there was no consent.
In Doe v. Parsons, the plaintiff met all four elements. The images in question were not just private—they were captured surreptitiously by a hidden camera in her own home. And they were shared via Facebook Messenger, clearly involving interstate communication.
What Made Doe’s Case So Clear-Cut?
Parsons had already been criminally indicted for the same conduct in Tennessee and had entered a guilty plea to unlawful photography under Tenn. Code § 39-13-605. This meant his liability was already baked into the record, and he admitted under diversion that the photos were captured and shared without consent.
When Jane Doe sued in federal court, the court quickly found that she was entitled to judgment on the pleadings. As Judge Jon Phipps McCalla wrote, “no material issue of fact exists such that Plaintiff is clearly entitled to judgment on the pleadings.”
She won:
-
$300,000 in liquidated damages ($150,000 per image),
-
A permanent injunction against further disclosure, and
-
A separate award of attorneys’ fees and litigation costs.
Why This Law Matters
Before § 6851, victims had to rely on state criminal charges or patchwork civil remedies like invasion of privacy, which were often costly, slow, or unavailable. Now, victims can file directly in federal court with a clear standard and meaningful remedies.
Jane Doe used this tool exactly as Congress intended—to hold her abuser accountable and stop the harm in its tracks.
