Unlawful disclosure of intimate visual material in Texas — chapter 98B, rewritten for AI in 2025

Chapter 98B is Texas's civil remedy for the non-consensual disclosure of intimate images. It was enacted in 2015, extended to website operators in 2019, and rewritten in 2025 by S.B. 441, which added three things the earlier chapter lacked: liability for material produced by artificial intelligence, duties owed by the platforms that host it, and a limitations period of its own.

That period is ten years, which is the single most consequential fact on this page. Anyone working from the general two-year personal injury rule is wrong by eight years.

What the claim is

Someone disclosed intimate images of you without your consent — or generated them with software and disclosed those.

Where the right comes from

CPRC chapter 98B.

What a plaintiff has to prove — disclosure of real material

Section 98B.002(a) makes a defendant liable to a person depicted in intimate visual material for damages arising from disclosure if:

1. The defendant disclosed the material without the effective consent of the depicted person and with the intent to harm that person;
2. At the time of disclosure the defendant knew or had reason to believe the material was obtained or created under circumstances in which the depicted person had a reasonable expectation that it would remain private;
3. The disclosure caused harm to the depicted person; and
4. The disclosure revealed the identity of the depicted person in any manner — including through accompanying or subsequent information, or through material a third party supplied in response to the disclosure.

Section 98B.002(b) adds liability for promoting such material, knowing its character and content, on a website or other forum for publication the defendant owns or operates.

"Intimate visual material" means visual material depicting a person with their intimate parts exposed or engaged in sexual conduct — § 98B.001(2). "Consent", defined in 2025, means "affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement, made by a person freely and without coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation."

Element four rewards the defendant who posted anonymously and punishes the one who tagged the photo — and it reaches identification supplied by commenters afterwards.

Artificial intimate visual material — § 98B.0021

Added in 2025, this is a separate liability provision for synthetic material, and its elements are looser than § 98B.002 in two respects: there is no reasonable-expectation-of-privacy element, and the conduct reached is broader.

A defendant is liable to a person depicted in artificial intimate visual material for damages arising from the production, solicitation, disclosure, or promotion of the material if:

1. the defendant produced, solicited, disclosed or promoted it without the depicted person's effective consent and with intent to harm them;
2. that conduct caused harm; and
3. that conduct revealed the identity of the depicted person in any manner.

Producing it is enough. So is asking someone else to make it. The claim does not wait for publication.

"Artificial intimate visual material" is defined in § 98B.001(1) as computer-generated intimate visual material produced, adapted or modified using an artificial intelligence application or other software, in which the person is recognisable as an actual person by face, likeness, voice or other distinguishing characteristic — such that, viewed by a reasonable person, it is indistinguishable from the person depicted.

Platforms, nudification apps and the 72-hour clock — § 98B.0022

The 2025 amendments reached past the individual poster.

Subsection (a) makes a person who owns an internet website or application, including a social media platform, liable where they recklessly facilitate the production or disclosure of artificial intimate visual material in exchange for payment, own a publicly accessible nudification application from which the material is produced, or recklessly process or facilitate payment for it — if they know or recklessly disregard that the depicted person did not consent.

Subsection (b) imposes the takedown duty: where a depicted person requests removal, the owner is liable if it fails to remove the material within 72 hours and to make reasonable efforts to identify and remove known identical copies.

Subsections (c) and (d) require an easily accessible removal-request system and a clear, conspicuous, plain-language notice describing it.

Subsection (e) makes a violation of (b), (c) or (d) a deceptive trade practice actionable under the DTPA — which carries treble damages and its own fee provision. Subsection (f) lets the attorney general sue for injunctive relief against repeat violators and recover costs and fees.

A "nudification application" is defined in § 98B.001(3) as an AI application primarily designed and marketed to produce artificial intimate visual material.

How long you have to file

Ten years, under § 98B.009 — "not later than 10 years after the later of the date on which":

1. the depicted person reasonably discovers the material; or
2. the depicted person turns 18 years of age.

Both halves matter. Discovery accrual answers the case where images circulated for years before the person found them, and the majority trigger means material created when the claimant was a child is actionable until they are 28.

This section was added in 2025. Before it, courts applied the two-year personal injury period in CPRC § 16.003(a), and claims that would have been dead are now live.

What has to happen before you file

Nothing. For the platform claim under § 98B.0022(b), the removal request is what starts the 72-hour clock, so it should be made in writing and dated.

What the claim pays

Section 98B.003(a): a prevailing claimant shall be awarded:

1. actual damages, including damages for mental anguish;
2. court costs; and
3. reasonable attorney's fees.

Section 98B.003(b) adds exemplary damages at the claimant's election.

Injunctive relief under § 98B.004(a) — a temporary restraining order or a temporary or permanent injunction restraining disclosure or promotion.

Damages for violating the injunction under § 98B.004(b): $1,000 for each violation where the disclosure or promotion is wilful or intentional, and $500 for each violation where it is not. This is the enforcement mechanism for a defendant who keeps reposting, and it is per violation.

There is no general statutory damages figure in chapter 98B. The $1,000 and $500 amounts attach to violations of a court's order, not to the original disclosure.

Who can be sued

The person who disclosed or promoted the material.

The producer or solicitor of AI-generated material, under § 98B.0021.

The website, application or social media platform, under § 98B.0022, for reckless facilitation, for owning a nudification app, for processing the payments, or for failing to take material down within 72 hours of a request.

Not an interactive computer service for a disclosure or promotion consisting of material another person provided — § 98B.007(b) preserves that immunity for the claims under § 98B.002. Note the limit: § 98B.0022 imposes duties on platforms directly, for their own conduct.

Jurisdiction — the long-arm provision

Section 98B.006 gives a Texas court personal jurisdiction over a defendant if the defendant resides in Texas, the claimant resides in Texas, the material is stored on a server located in Texas, or the material is available for view in Texas.

That last clause is written as broadly as it reads, and it is how a Texas claimant reaches an out-of-state poster.

Suing without your name in the record

Section 98B.008, added in 2025, gives the same confidential-identity protection chapter 98 provides: the court shall tell the claimant early that a pseudonym is available, allow it in every filing, use it in all proceedings and records including on appeal, and keep the records confidential. Only the judge, the parties, their attorneys and any person a court order names may know the true identity, and the court must order them not to divulge it.

Common defenses

• Effective consent to the disclosure — which is not consent to the photograph.
• No intent to harm.
• No reasonable expectation of privacy in how the material was obtained or created, under § 98B.002(a)(2). Note this element is absent from the AI provision.
• No identification of the depicted person.
• Section 98B.007(b) immunity for an interactive computer service, on the § 98B.002 claims.
• The material was removed within 72 hours, on the platform claim.
• Limitations — ten years from the later of discovery or majority.

What people get wrong

The deadline is ten years, not two. Section 98B.009 was added in 2025 and displaces the general tort period.

Consenting to the photograph is not consenting to the disclosure. The statute keys consent to the disclosure, and the 2025 definition requires affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement.

Deepfakes are covered — since 2025, not 2023. Section 98B.0021 was added by S.B. 441 effective September 1, 2025, and it reaches production and solicitation, not only disclosure.

There is no $10,000 statutory damages figure. The per-violation amounts in § 98B.004(b) are $1,000 and $500, and they apply to violations of a court order.

Platforms are not uniformly immune. Section 98B.0022 imposes direct duties, and failing to remove material within 72 hours of a request is a deceptive trade practice.

Where it came from

Chapter 98B was enacted in 2015, when Texas joined the states creating civil remedies for what was then called revenge pornography. The original chapter was built around a single fact pattern: a former partner who had images and published them.

Everything since has been an attempt to keep up with the technology. In 2019 the chapter reached operators who promoted material on their own sites. In 2025, S.B. 441 confronted generative software, and the drafting shows what the legislature concluded about it — that synthetic material harms the depicted person the same way real material does, that the privacy element makes no sense when the image was fabricated, and that the harm begins at production rather than at publication.

The same bill added the ten-year period, which quietly changed the character of the claim. Two years had never fit an injury that surfaces when someone stumbles across an image years later, or when a person who was photographed as a child grows up.

Common questions

How long do I have to sue for the disclosure of intimate images in Texas?

Ten years after the later of the date you reasonably discovered the material or the date you turned 18.

Does it matter that I sent the photo willingly?

No. The statute keys consent to the disclosure, and consent must be affirmative, conscious and voluntary.

Are deepfakes covered?

Yes. Since September 1, 2025, § 98B.0021 covers artificial intimate visual material, and reaches producing, soliciting, disclosing and promoting it.

Can I make a website take the images down?

Yes. A request triggers a 72-hour removal duty under § 98B.0022(b), and failure is actionable as a deceptive trade practice. You can also seek an injunction under § 98B.004.

Are attorney's fees recoverable?

Yes. A prevailing claimant shall be awarded actual damages, court costs and reasonable attorney's fees.

Can I sue anonymously?

Yes, under § 98B.008. The court must tell you the option is available and keep your identity out of the record.

Where these rules live

• CPRC § 98B.002 — Liability for unlawful disclosure or promotion
• CPRC § 98B.0021 — Liability for artificial intimate visual material
• CPRC § 98B.0022 — Liability of website owners and payment processors
• CPRC § 98B.003 — Damages
• CPRC § 98B.004 — Injunctive relief
• CPRC § 98B.009 — Statute of limitations