AI Sexual Images Laws: Nudify Apps, AI Porn, AI CSAM (2027)

Is AI porn illegal? Not by itself: as of November 2026 we found no federal law that bans AI-generated sexual images of a fictional adult, but knowingly publishing a realistic AI sexual image of a real person can be a federal crime under the TAKE IT DOWN Act, 47 U.S.C. 223(h), and AI sexual images of children are reached by 18 U.S.C. 2252A and 18 U.S.C. 1466A, each with limits.

So the answer depends on who the image shows and what was done with it. A fictional adult, a real adult and a child are three different legal questions, and making, keeping, sharing and watching are treated differently under each.

Status as of November 5, 2026: The TAKE IT DOWN Act's crime has been in force since May 19, 2025, and the FTC began enforcing its platform removal duty on May 19, 2026. Minnesota's nudification statute is before the Eighth Circuit, and no court has ruled on its merits. The only law we found from this Congress that makes publishing intimate deepfakes a crime is the TAKE IT DOWN Act. DEFIANCE passed the Senate but not the House, and NO FAKES has not had a floor vote in either chamber.

This page covers US federal law, with state examples on nudification services. State criminal and civil rules differ, and the deepfake laws hub links each state page. Age verification for adult sites is a separate subject, covered under pornography laws.

Is AI Porn Illegal? Fictional Adults

Not by itself. We found no federal law that bans AI-generated sexual images of a fictional adult. It becomes a legal problem when it shows a real person who did not agree and is published, when it shows or appears to show a minor, or when it is obscene and is sold or sent across state lines. State laws add their own rules, and we did not survey state obscenity law for this page.

The TAKE IT DOWN Act does not reach a wholly invented adult, because every offense requires an "identifiable individual." That leaves obscenity law, which can apply to any image. The Supreme Court's test asks whether material appeals to the prurient interest, is patently offensive under community standards and has no serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value, as Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition recites it from Miller.

Two federal statutes show how that works. 18 U.S.C. 1462 covers knowingly using an "interactive computer service" to carry obscene matter in interstate or foreign commerce, and knowingly taking or receiving it, with up to 5 years for a first offense and 10 after. 18 U.S.C. 1465 covers one who "knowingly produces with the intent to transport, distribute, or transmit" such matter in commerce, or uses a facility of commerce "for the purpose of sale or distribution."

Private possession is different. In Stanley v. Georgia, the Supreme Court held that "the mere private possession of obscene matter cannot constitutionally be made a crime." Commerce in obscene material can be.

The Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (S. 1671, H.R. 3297) would add a federal definition of "obscene" for visual depictions, and the text we read has no community-standards part. Both versions were referred to committee on May 8, 2025, and neither had further action as of November 5, 2026. It is not law, and no bill that would ban adult pornography has passed either chamber that we found.

Is Deepfake Porn Illegal? AI Images of Real Adults

Publishing it can be, on the statute's elements. Federal law does not ban deepfakes as such. The TAKE IT DOWN Act's only verb for this crime is "publish," so its reach is narrower than "deepfake porn is illegal" suggests.

What Is Deepfake Pornography? The Legal Term Is "Digital Forgery"

Deepfake pornography usually means a realistic fake sexual image of a real person. The term that controls in federal law is "digital forgery," and the definition has limits that decide cases:

"any intimate visual depiction of an identifiable individual created through the use of software, machine learning, artificial intelligence, or any other computer-generated or technological means, including by adapting, modifying, manipulating, or altering an authentic visual depiction, that, when viewed as a whole by a reasonable person, is indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual." 47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)(B)

Three limits follow from the text. An obviously fake or cartoon image is not a digital forgery, because it must be "indistinguishable." A clothed or merely suggestive image falls outside unless it shows something on the list in 15 U.S.C. 6851(a)(5), which includes sexually explicit conduct, because an "intimate visual depiction" is limited to that list. And an invented person is outside, because the image must show an "identifiable individual."

The Federal Crime: 47 U.S.C. 223(h)

The TAKE IT DOWN Act, signed May 19, 2025, makes it a crime to knowingly publish certain intimate images online, including realistic AI fakes it calls "digital forgeries." For a forgery of an adult, the government must show it was published without consent, that what it shows was not voluntarily exposed in a public or commercial setting and is not a matter of public concern, and that the publication was meant to cause harm or did cause it.

Penalties reach 2 years for an adult forgery. Threatening to publish a forgery of an adult "for the purpose of intimidation, coercion, extortion, or to create mental distress" can bring up to 18 months. Conviction also carries mandatory forfeiture and restitution.

Consent has a specific meaning here. It is "an affirmative, conscious, and voluntary authorization," and agreeing to the creation of an image "shall not establish" consent to publish it. The Act excepts, among other things, good-faith disclosures to law enforcement, in a legal filing or to report unlawful content, and a person who "possesses or publishes" a depiction "of himself or herself."

The full elements, exceptions and platform rules are on our TAKE IT DOWN Act page. State laws on real and fake intimate images are collected under revenge porn laws by state.

Prosecutions: The Conviction Prosecutors Call the First

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Ohio said a defendant in United States v. Strahler pleaded guilty on April 7, 2026 "to cyberstalking, producing obscene visual representations of child sexual abuse and publication of digital forgeries." The office added: "We believe Strahler is the first person in the United States to be convicted under the Take It Down Act."

He was sentenced on September 8, 2026 to "180 months in prison." The release gives no statute numbers and no split by count, so that total cannot be read as a TAKE IT DOWN sentence. The Act's own maximum is 2 or 3 years.

AI CSAM: Is AI-Generated Child Sexual Abuse Material Illegal?

Federal law reaches AI-made sexual images of children, but the rule depends on the image. Altering a real, identifiable child's image into sexual conduct falls under the federal child pornography statutes, with no defense that no real child was used. Separately, 18 U.S.C. 1466A covers obscene images of a minor even if no real child exists. In August 2026 a federal appeals court held the possession part of Section 1466A unconstitutional as applied to one man's possession at home of obscene images the government agreed showed no real child; his production and distribution charges were not before the court.

The law calls this material "child pornography" and, in Section 1466A, obscene visual representations. 18 U.S.C. 2256 is only a definitions section; the crimes are in Sections 2252A and 1466A. Section 2251, the production statute, targets one who "employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any minor," so it needs a real minor.

The Statutes: 18 U.S.C. 2252A, 2256(8) and 1466A

Under Section 2252A(b), mailing, transporting, receiving, distributing, reproducing for distribution, advertising and selling carry 5 to 20 years, or 15 to 40 with a prior conviction. Possession carries up to 10 years, up to 20 if the image involves a prepubescent minor or a minor under 12, or 10 to 20 with a prior conviction.

Section 1466A states that it "is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist." It also names drawings and cartoons, so "drawings are legal" is wrong as a general statement.

The "No Real Child" Defense: 18 U.S.C. 2252A(c)(2)

Section 2252A(c)(2) makes it an affirmative defense to most Section 2252A charges that "the alleged child pornography was not produced using any actual minor or minors." The defendant carries the burden and must give notice of the defense no later than 14 days before trial, or earlier if the court's schedule requires it.

The same subsection closes that door for altered images of real children: "No affirmative defense under subsection (c)(2) shall be available in any prosecution that involves child pornography as described in section 2256(8)(C)." Section 1466A needs no real child and has no such defense, which helps explain why it matters for wholly synthetic material. That last observation is ours, not a court's.

United States v. Anderegg: What the Seventh Circuit Decided

In United States v. Anderegg, No. 25-1354 (7th Cir. Aug. 25, 2026), the court held that "§ 1466A(b)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to Anderegg." The opinion calls its question "narrow: does the First Amendment allow the government to proscribe the in-home possession of obscene virtual CSAM." The government had conceded that the images "do not depict an actual child, nor can they be linked to an actual child."

The ruling rests on Stanley and Ashcroft. It is not a ruling that AI CSAM is legal or protected. Here is what it did not do:

• It decided one possession count, against one defendant, as applied to possession at home.
• It did not decide Section 1466A(a), Section 2252A or Section 2256(8)(B) or (C).
• It did not address any image tied to a real child, or possession outside the home.
• Count 1 (production) and Counts 2 and 3 (distributing and transferring) were not before the panel and remained in the district court when it ruled.
• It binds courts only in the Seventh Circuit (Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin). We did not survey other circuits.

Judge Lee, joined by Judge Kolar, wrote separately that "we would benefit from additional guidance from the Supreme Court regarding the intersection between the First Amendment and virtual CSAM if an appropriate case should arise." Our news report on the Seventh Circuit ruling has more on the decision.

The First Amendment Question Is Not Closed

In Ashcroft (2002), the Supreme Court held that "the prohibitions of §§2256(8)(B) and 2256(8)(D) are overbroad and unconstitutional." That concerned the old wording, "is, or appears to be." Congress later rewrote (B) around "indistinguishable," and we found no Supreme Court ruling on the current text.

Ashcroft did not rule on altered images of real children, noting that "Respondents do not challenge this provision, and we do not consider it," and said such images "implicate the interests of real children." In United States v. Williams (2008), the Court upheld the pandering provision, 2252A(a)(3)(B). It said a person "who advertises virtual child pornography as depicting actual children also falls within the reach of the statute."

TAKE IT DOWN Is Not the AI CSAM Statute

The TAKE IT DOWN Act has offenses for publishing intimate depictions of minors. For a forgery of a minor, the government must show intent to abuse, humiliate, harass or degrade the minor, or to arouse or gratify sexual desire. Consent is not an element, the maximum is 3 years, and threatening to publish a forgery of a minor can bring up to 30 months.

But Sections 223(h)(2)(C)(v) and (3)(C)(v) carve out publication of material that is child pornography under Section 2256 or a depiction described in Section 1466A. That material is charged under Title 18, with far heavier penalties. The Act's platform removal duty has no such carve-out in its text, so a valid request can reach such an image.

State AI CSAM Laws

States have their own statutes. As of September 2026, the advocacy group Enough Abuse counted 47 states with laws criminalizing AI-generated or computer-edited child sexual abuse material; it lists Massachusetts, Ohio, Vermont and D.C. as without one. That is an advocacy tracker, not a legal ruling, and whether an older state statute reaches wholly AI-made images can be unsettled. See the hub for state pages.

Make, Keep, Share, Watch: What Federal Law Says

The usual question is whether making an image is illegal, or only sharing it. Federal law answers differently for adults and minors. These tables state federal law only; a state law can be broader.

AI images of a real adult

State law often differs on the first row. Florida's statute uses "willfully generates," Michigan's "create or disseminate," Arkansas's "create or distribute" and Texas's "produces or distributes." Each has its own elements, so check the state page before relying on the federal answer. The Texas page is one example.

AI sexual images of a minor

Never copy, screenshot or forward an image that may show a minor, even to help. Report it instead, using the routes below.

Nudify Apps and Nudification Laws: Are "Undress" Apps Legal?

A nudification tool, or "nudify" app, is a tool that makes a sexual image from a clothed picture. The TAKE IT DOWN Act does not ban these tools. Its platform process applies to them only as it applies to other covered platforms.

Minnesota is the only state we found with an outright ban on offering a nudification service. It is not the only state with law aimed at these services: Texas, for one, bars developing or distributing an AI system with the sole intent of producing deep fakes that violate its Penal Code 21.165, and Wyoming Statute 6-4-308, effective July 1, 2026, makes it a felony of up to 10 years, with exceptions, to knowingly develop or distribute an AI system specifically designed to create, distribute or promote child pornography or realistic images of a specific person's intimate parts, if the person intends or knows the system will be used for child pornography. Our state review was not a full 50-state sweep as of November 5, 2026, so that finding could change.

Minnesota Statute 325E.91: The Nudification Ban

Under subdivision 1(d), "nudify" requires an image of an identifiable individual altered or generated to show an intimate part not in the original, so realistic that a reasonable person would believe the part belongs to that individual. Subdivision 3 says the ban does not apply when the service "requires the technical skill of a user." Subdivision 7 leaves 47 U.S.C. 230 unchanged.

The depicted person can sue for up to three times actual damages, punitive damages, an injunction and fees. The Attorney General can seek a civil penalty "not to exceed $500,000 for each unlawful access, download, or use." The law targets owners, controllers and promoters of a service. It has no offense for an individual user, though a user who publishes an image still faces the laws above.

The statute is on the books, effective August 1, 2026, for causes of action accruing on or after that date. In SpaceXAI LLC (formerly X.AI) v. Ellison, a First Amendment challenge (D. Minn. 0:26-cv-03425; 8th Cir. No. 26-2806), a federal district judge denied a preliminary injunction on September 4, 2026.

An October 2, 2026 Eighth Circuit docket entry states that xAI's motion for an injunction pending appeal was granted. The entry does not state how far the injunction reaches, and this page relies on the entry, not on the text of the order. The court has not ruled on the merits of the First Amendment challenge, and the Minnesota Attorney General's brief is due November 30, 2026. See the Minnesota deepfake laws page and our news report on the Eighth Circuit order.

Texas and California: No Outright Ban

We found no outright ban on offering the service in Texas or California. Texas does bar something narrower: under Business and Commerce Code 552.057, a person may not develop or distribute an AI system with the sole intent of producing deep fakes that violate Penal Code 21.165, and the Attorney General enforces that rule. Beyond that, the two states let depicted people, and in some cases public officials, go after operators.

In Texas, Section 98B.007(b) excludes claims against an interactive computer service for material "provided by another person." Section 98B.0022(b) also sets a separate 72-hour removal rule. See the Texas deepfake laws page.

California's Section 1708.86(c)(2) adds a presumption for those whose services enable a deepfake pornography service. A provider "shall be presumed to be in violation" of the facilitation rule if, after receiving evidence from a depicted individual or public prosecutor, it fails to take all necessary steps to stop providing those services within 30 days. That is a presumption, not a takedown deadline, and a court can extend the 30 days for an ongoing law enforcement matter. See the California deepfake laws page.

The FTC's Nudify Warning Letters

The FTC said on May 20, 2026 that it sent warning letters to 12 companies offering so-called nudify tools, which it said appear to violate the Act by lacking a removal process, and that violations could bring civil penalties of up to $53,088 each. Letters are not findings. We did not find a resulting enforcement action as of November 5, 2026.

State officials have also acted by letter. An Illinois Attorney General release says 35 attorneys general demanded on January 23, 2026 that xAI take additional action on nonconsensual intimate images and child sexual abuse material. That is a demand letter, not a lawsuit, and our searches found no attorney general lawsuit against xAI as of November 5, 2026.

Can You Sue Over an AI Sexual Image?

Possibly, but not under the TAKE IT DOWN Act. We found no private right to sue in its text. The FTC enforces the platform duty, and federal prosecutors bring the crime.

The civil route is 15 U.S.C. 6851 and state law. Section 6851 lets a person sue over a disclosure of their intimate visual depiction by someone who "knows that, or recklessly disregards whether," the person has not consented, with actual damages or liquidated damages of $150,000, fees and an injunction. Whether a pure fake counts as the person's "intimate visual depiction" is unsettled, and we found no ruling on it.

The DEFIANCE Act (S. 1837) would answer that question by adding a claim over an "intimate digital forgery." It passed the Senate by unanimous consent on January 13, 2026, and the House has not acted. It is not law; the bill's status is on our federal deepfake bills page. State claims, including the Minnesota, Texas and California provisions above, have their own elements and time limits.

How to Get an AI Sexual Image Removed

Which route fits depends on the person's age and where the image appears. None of them removes an image from the entire internet.

The TAKE IT DOWN 48-Hour Request

Under 47 U.S.C. 223a, a covered platform must remove an intimate image "as soon as possible, but not later than 48 hours after receiving such request," and make "reasonable efforts to identify and remove any known identical copies." Only a valid removal request starts that clock. It must be in writing and include:

• A physical or electronic signature, from the person or someone authorized to act for them.
• Identification of the image, with enough information for the platform to locate it.
• A brief statement of a good-faith belief that the image is not consensual.
• Contact information.

A covered platform is a public site, service or app that mainly hosts user-generated content, or is in the regular business of hosting nonconsensual intimate images. Email and broadband providers are excluded. If a platform ignores a valid request or has no process, the FTC takes complaints at TakeItDown.ftc.gov.

StopNCII for Adults

StopNCII.org is a service for people 18 and older. It works by making a hash on your own device, so the image itself is not uploaded, and participating platforms use the hash.

Its FAQ covers fakes: "If the 'deepfake' or synthetic image is of you, you have access to the image and it is nude/semi nude, then you can hash it." Its how-it-works page says it "cannot remove images from the whole internet, only the participating platforms," and the FAQ says an edited or cropped version needs its own hash.

NCMEC Take It Down for Minors

NCMEC's Take It Down is a free service for images taken of you when you were under 18, and you can remain anonymous. It works only on "public or unencrypted online platforms that have agreed to participate." NCMEC's generative AI page says the service can help where a sexually explicit image is circulating, "whether real or GAI-created."

Its FAQ says you must have the image or video on your device, and it warns: "Do not download or share any nude, partially nude or sexually explicit image or video in order to submit."

Reporting a Sexual Image of a Child: The CyberTipline

Report it to the NCMEC CyberTipline, online at report.cybertip.org or by calling 1-800-843-5678, or go to the police. NCMEC says the use of generative AI to create such images "should always be reported and taken seriously." After handling a report, it shares it with the appropriate law enforcement agency.

Do not copy, screenshot or forward the image, including as evidence. Note where you saw it and tell the CyberTipline or police that location.

What Changes in AI Sexual Images Law in 2027

No federal statute on this subject has a 2027 effective date that we found: TAKE IT DOWN's platform deadline passed on May 19, 2026, and the Act has no sunset. The dated events we found are these.

• November 12 and 30, 2026, Eighth Circuit: The ACLU has until November 12 to file an amicus brief, with leave not yet granted, and the Minnesota Attorney General's brief is due November 30 in No. 26-2806, per the docket copy read November 5, 2026. We saw no argument date.
• January 1, 2027, California: SB 1276 (Stats. 2026, ch. 192, approved September 10, 2026) amends Penal Code 311.3, which covers digitally altered or AI-generated matter depicting a person under 18 engaged in an act of sexual conduct. The bill's digest says that, except as specified, a person who "downloads, streams, or accesses through electronic or digital media" that conduct, "knowing that the matter depicts a person under 18 years of age engaged in an act of sexual conduct," is guilty of a misdemeanor or a felony. We expect it to apply from January 1, 2027, by our reading of California's default effective-date rule.
• January 1, 2027, Utah: H.B. 276, signed March 24, 2026, says that on that date a "generation service," an online service that lets users generate intimate images, handles those requests on systems its operator controls rather than only on the user's device, and distributes the images through the service, "may not distribute a counterfeit intimate image without first obtaining consent" from the person depicted. Generating an image and giving it to the user counts as distributing it. The bill lets an injured person sue the service, subject to a safe harbor. A counterfeit intimate image is a digital forgery as the TAKE IT DOWN Act defines it.
• January 3, 2027, Congress: A bill that is not enacted before the 119th Congress ends on January 3, 2027 does not carry over. It would have to be introduced again in the next Congress. That covers S. 1837, the Senate-passed DEFIANCE Act, and Congress could still act before then.
• Anderegg: We did not find a rehearing or Supreme Court filing in one search as of November 5, 2026, and we have not reviewed the docket or the status of the remaining counts.
• New York: S10676 would ban nudification services. It was referred to the Rules Committee on August 10, 2026, and is not law.

State sessions in 2027 may add more. We list only what we could date.

Where to Get Help

If someone published or threatened to publish a sexual image of you, you can report it to local police, and your state attorney general's office can tell you what it handles. For a child, use the CyberTipline or police right away.

For legal advice, your state bar's lawyer referral service or a local legal aid office can point you to a lawyer who handles these cases. Civil deadlines vary by state and claim, so it is worth asking early.

This page is general legal information about US law as of November 5, 2026, not legal advice. A lawyer licensed in your state can advise on your situation.

Related Deepfake Laws

• Deepfake laws by state
• TAKE IT DOWN Act
• Revenge porn laws by state
• Federal deepfake bills
• Minnesota deepfake laws
• Texas deepfake laws
• California deepfake laws
• Pornography laws and age verification

Frequently Asked Questions

Is AI porn illegal?

Not by itself. We found no federal law that bans AI-generated sexual images of a fictional adult. It becomes a legal problem when it shows a real person who did not agree and is published, when it shows or appears to show a minor, or when it is obscene and is sold or sent across state lines. State laws add their own rules.

Is deepfake porn illegal?

Publishing it can be. The TAKE IT DOWN Act, 47 U.S.C. 223(h), makes it a federal crime to knowingly publish a realistic AI intimate image of an identifiable adult if it was published without consent, what it shows was not voluntarily exposed in a public or commercial setting and is not a matter of public concern, and the publication was meant to cause harm or did cause it. Many states have their own laws.

What is deepfake pornography?

It usually means a realistic fake sexual image of a real person. Federal law calls it a digital forgery: an intimate image of an identifiable individual, made by technological means, that a reasonable person viewing it as a whole could not tell from an authentic image of that individual.

Is it illegal to make a deepfake of an adult if I never share it?

Not under the TAKE IT DOWN Act, whose only verb for the crime is publish. State law may differ: some state statutes reach generating, creating or producing. Threatening to publish a forgery is a separate federal offense, and images of minors follow different rules.

Is AI-generated child sexual abuse material illegal?

Federal law reaches it, but the rule depends on the image. Altering a real, identifiable child's image into sexual conduct falls under the federal child pornography statutes, with no defense that no real child was used. 18 U.S.C. 1466A separately covers obscene images of a minor even if no real child exists.

Did a federal court rule that AI CSAM is legal?

No. In United States v. Anderegg (7th Cir. Aug. 25, 2026), the court held one possession provision, 18 U.S.C. 1466A(b)(1), unconstitutional as applied to one man's possession at home of obscene images the government agreed showed no real child. His production and distribution charges were not before the court, and the ruling binds only courts in the Seventh Circuit.

Is watching AI porn illegal?

The TAKE IT DOWN Act does not name viewing, and we found no federal law that bans AI sexual images of a fictional adult as such. Private possession of obscene matter at home cannot be made a crime, but federal law does reach knowingly receiving it through an interactive computer service. For images of minors, 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(5) makes it a crime to knowingly access child pornography with intent to view it.

Are nudify apps illegal?

It depends on the state. Minnesota is the only state we found with an outright ban on offering a nudification service, and that law is in litigation. Texas and California put civil liability on some operators, and Texas also bars developing or distributing an AI system with the sole intent of producing deep fakes that violate its Penal Code. Wyoming makes it a felony, with exceptions, to knowingly develop or distribute certain AI systems for child pornography. The TAKE IT DOWN Act does not ban the tools, though the FTC has warned 12 companies that it said appear to lack the required removal process.

Is Minnesota's nudification ban in effect?

The statute, Minn. Stat. 325E.91, is on the books, effective August 1, 2026. An October 2, 2026 Eighth Circuit docket entry states that xAI's motion for an injunction pending appeal was granted. The entry does not state how far the injunction reaches. The court has not ruled on the merits.

Can a user be punished under Minnesota's nudification law?

The statute targets those who own or control a service, or advertise or promote it. It has no offense for an individual user. A user who publishes an image can still face other federal and state laws.

Can I sue over a deepfake under the TAKE IT DOWN Act?

We found no private right to sue in the Act. The civil routes are 15 U.S.C. 6851, whose reach to pure fakes is unsettled, and state law. The DEFIANCE Act would add a federal claim, but it has not passed the House and is not law.

How fast must a website remove a deepfake?

A covered platform must remove the image as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after a valid request. The request must be written and signed, identify and locate the image, state a good-faith belief it is not consensual, and give contact information. Complaints about platforms go to TakeItDown.ftc.gov.

What should I do if I find a sexual image of a child?

Do not copy, screenshot or forward it. Report it to the NCMEC CyberTipline at report.cybertip.org or 1-800-843-5678, or to the police.

Did Trump ban porn?

We found no such law. The President signed the TAKE IT DOWN Act on May 19, 2025, which covers certain intimate images. We found nothing showing him sponsoring or signing an obscenity bill, and the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act has had no action since referral to committee.