Criminalizes nonconsensual nudification images

Summary#

SF-5310, “Nonconsensual creation, possession, and dissemination prohibition of nudification images,” would add a new criminal-law section to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 617; it does not amend an existing section. Its stated goal is to prohibit nonconsensual creation or dissemination of certain realistic altered or generated images. The bill is introduced and passage is uncertain.

  • A person would commit a felony by intentionally creating or disseminating a covered image if they know, or reasonably should know, the depicted person did not consent and that person is identifiable.
  • A “nudification image” depicts an identifiable person as nude, exposing intimate parts, or engaging in a sexual act when the source material did not depict them that way. The alteration or generation must be realistic enough that a reasonable person would believe the intimate part belongs to the person.
  • The basic maximum penalty would be five years in prison, a $10,000 fine, or both. Listed aggravating factors could raise the maximum to ten years, a $20,000 fine, or both.
  • The bill provides exemptions for specified uses, including criminal investigations, treatment with protection against further sharing, certain public-interest uses, and legitimate research or education under stated conditions. It also protects listed online and communications services from criminal liability for content provided by another person.
  • Despite its title, the bill does not make mere possession a crime. It also does not require websites to remove images.

What it means for you#

  • People depicted: The bill would make certain nonconsensual creation and sharing of identifiable nudification images criminal. It does not create a process to request removal or compensation.
  • People who create or share images: The bill’s felony penalties could apply if the person intentionally creates or disseminates an image and knows, or reasonably should know, that the depicted person did not consent. Voluntary private transmission of the image by that person would not be a defense.
  • Online and communications services: The listed services would not be criminally liable under this section for content another person provides. The bill does not require them to monitor or remove content.
  • Police and prosecutors: The bill would allow prosecution in several listed counties, including where the image was produced, stored, received, or possessed. The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission must assign a severity level as soon as practicable.
  • General public: If enacted, the section would apply to crimes committed on or after August 1, 2026.

Money#

No publicly available information about the bill’s public cost is provided.

  • The bill sets maximum criminal fines, but does not estimate fine revenue or costs for investigation, prosecution, imprisonment, or the Sentencing Guidelines Commission’s work.
  • It does not provide funding, create a benefit, or set a fee.

What is unclear#

  • The title mentions possession, but the crime in the bill covers intentional creation or dissemination—not possession alone.
  • The bill does not explain how investigators or courts should assess whether an image is realistic enough, or when someone “reasonably should know” there was no consent.
  • The bill does not set rules for image removal, victim applications, notice, appeals, or reporting.
  • The bill’s exemption for a commercial setting applies when the person depicted knew or reasonably should have known an image would be created and disseminated. The text does not say that this must mean the person consented.
  • The bill defines nudification by reference to an altered or generated intimate part, while its image definition also mentions depiction of a sexual act. How those terms apply together is not explained.
  • The supplied material does not include current versions of the other statutes it references, so how this section would interact with existing law cannot be verified here.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to address realistic fabricated sexual images made or shared without the depicted person’s consent.
  • A possible argument for criminal penalties is that the bill covers both making an image and distributing it, while requiring intent and lack of consent knowledge.
  • The aggravating factors distinguish cases involving financial loss, intent to profit or harass, website posting, certain unlawful acquisition of source material, or a prior conviction.
  • The listed exemptions preserve specified uses such as investigations, treatment, research, education, and some public-interest purposes.

Case against#

  • The bill does not define how realism or reasonable knowledge would be judged, which could make the boundary of the crime uncertain.
  • Its public-interest and commercial-setting exemptions may be difficult to apply because the bill does not give further criteria.
  • The bill creates felony penalties but provides no estimate of enforcement, prosecution, or imprisonment costs.
  • Because it does not criminalize possession alone or require removal, it may not address every way a person could keep or encounter a harmful image.