Author: Kaif Khan
College: Lloyd Law College
Abstract
Non-Consensual Intimate Image (NCII) abuse is no longer a fringe issue limited to the darker corners of the internet. It has become a serious and growing form of digital harm, attracting increasing attention from lawmakers, courts, and technology platforms worldwide. Once commonly reduced to the term “revenge porn,” the problem has taken on a new and more troubling dimension with the rise of generative artificial intelligence, which has made it easier to create and spread intimate images without a person’s consent.
This article explores how NCII abuse has evolved, usesavailable data to understand the scale of the problem, and examines how the United States, European Union, United Kingdom, and India are responding through legislation and judicial action. While recent legal developments show that NCII is finally being treated with the seriousness it deserves, significant challenges remain. Weak enforcement, differences between jurisdictions, the speed at which harmful content spreads across borders, and the role of online platforms continue to make meaningful protection difficult for survivors.
To the Point
Non-Consensual Intimate Image (NCII) abuse involves creating, sharing, or threatening to share intimate images or videos of someone without their consent. The term “revenge porn” has increasingly been criticized because it assumes that the abuse is driven by revenge, usually after a relationship ends, and can subtly suggest that the victim somehow played a role in what happened. In reality, NCII abuse can happen to anyone, regardless of their relationship with the perpetrator. GenerativeAI has made the problem even more serious. A perpetrator no longer needs access to an actual intimate photograph, a hacked device, or a past relationship with the victim. In many cases, a single publicly available photograph and an easily accessible AI tool can be enough to create convincing sexual images within minutes. The fact that an image is AI-generated does not make the harm any less real. Victims can experience severe emotional and psychological consequences whether the image is genuine or entirely fabricated.
Governments have responded with a growing number of laws between 2024 and 2026, but the legal landscape remains uneven. At the same time, the online platforms through which this content spreads are often not held to the same level of responsibility. This creates a difficult legal question: the issue is no longer simply whether NCII should be criminalized, but how quickly platforms can be required to remove harmful content once it is reported.
Criminal laws can punish perpetrators, but they often come into play only after the damage has already been done. By then, an image may have been copied and shared across thousands of screens. This is why newer laws are increasingly turning their attention to platforms themselves, seeking to make content removal a legal obligation rather than something left to the platform’s discretion. The challenge now is ensuring that these obligations are strong enough to provide meaningful protection without placing an unrealistic burden on legitimate online expression.
The Proof
The numbers tell the story more clearly than any argument could. In the United Kingdom, the Revenge Porn Helpline recorded a dramatic increase in reported NCII cases, from 521 incidents in 2015 to more than 22,000 in 2024. If current trends continue, the number of cases could exceed 46,000 by 2028. Even these figures, however, may represent only a fraction of the actual problem. A 2025 analysis by SWGfL estimates that for every survivor who reaches a helpline, around 53 others experience similar abuse without seeking support. This highlights just how much NCII abuse remains hidden from authorities and support organizations.
The rise of AI-generated Deepfakes has made the situation even more alarming. Recent global tracking suggests that deepfakecontent has increased by around 550 percent since 2019, with sexually explicit material making up the vast majority of this content. Women and girls are overwhelmingly the primary targets. Reported cases increased by approximately 257 percent in 2024 alone, while the first quarter of 2025 reportedly saw more documented cases than the entire previous year. There has also been a sharp increase in reports of AI-generated child sexual abuse material, which reportedly rose by around 400 percent in 2025.
Research published and reviewed in recent academic literature points to a wider pattern. NCII disproportionately affects women, LGBTQ+ individuals, younger adults, disabled people, and Indigenous communities. Perpetrators are most often men, and in many cases the abuse is carried out by current or former intimate partners as a way of controlling, threatening, or punishing the victim.
The psychological consequences are just as serious. Survivors of NCII have been found to experience higher rates of post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts than people who have not experienced this form of abuse. Researchers have also described a phenomenon known as “social rupture”, where survivors lose their sense of safety and trust both online and offline. Some withdraw from social media, face difficulties at work, or even feel forced to relocate. These are not hypothetical consequences. They are real and documented forms of harm, and they appear to be becoming more common as generative AI tools become cheaper, more accessible, and easier to use.
The legal response, however, has not developed at the same pace. India, for example, already has provisions under the Information Technology Act, 2000 that can apply to NCII, including Section 66E, which addresses the non-consensual capture, publication, or transmission of images of a person’s private areas, as well as Sections 67 and 67A concerning obscene and sexually explicit material in electronic form. More recently, India has begun addressing the specific challenges created by generative AI. Amendments to the Information Technology Rules that came into force in February 2026 introduced obligations relating to synthetically generated information, including unlawful AI-generated content. The new framework also recognizes AI-generated morphed intimate images as a form of harmful synthetic content requiring prompt action by online intermediaries.
Unfortunately, legal protection on paper does not always translate into effective protection in practice. People who report NCII to law enforcement may encounter disbelief, victim-blaming, or officials who are unfamiliar with preserving digital evidence. Turning to online platforms can be equally frustrating. Reporting systems are often slow and difficult to navigate, and many were designed to deal with ordinary content complaints rather than situations where a person is in immediate distress and needs the same image removed from multiple platforms.
For years, much of the responsibility has fallen on the survivor: proving what happened, identifying where the content has been shared, filing reports, and repeatedly asking platforms to take it down. This places an enormous burden on the very person who has already been harmed. One of the most important developments in recent legislation is therefore the attempt to shift some of that responsibility away from survivors and towards the platforms and systems that allow this content to spread.
Judicial Response and Emerging Case Law
1. Sadhguru Jagadish Vasudev v. Igor Isakov & Ors. (2025)
The Delhi High Court protected Sadhguru’s name, image, voice and persona from unauthorized AI-generated content. The Court granted a broad injunction to prevent further misuse, recognizing the difficulty of controlling AI-generated content once it spreads online.
2. Ravi Shankar v. John Doe(s) / Ashok Kumar(s) & Ors. (2025)
In this case, the Delhi High Court dealt with the unauthorizeduse of Ravi Shankar’s identity through AI-generated deepfakes. The Court restrained such misuse and directed action against infringing content, reinforcing the protection of personality rights in the digital space.
3. Hrithik Roshan v. Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors. (2025)
The Delhi High Court addressed AI-generated and morphed content involving Hrithik Roshan. The Court ordered the removal of unauthorised content and protected his personality rights, showing that existing legal remedies can be used to respond to emerging forms of AI-enabled abuse.
These cases demonstrate that Indian courts are increasingly adapting traditional rights of privacy, dignity and personality to deal with the rapidly developing threat of AI deepfakes.
Use of Legal Jargon
A few legal terms are important for understanding the discussion that follows.
Safe Harbour: means legal protection given to online platforms for content posted by their users. For example, Section 79 of India’s IT Act and Section 230 in the US generally protect platforms from being held responsible for user-generated content, subject to certain conditions. New NCII laws increasingly make this protection dependent on platforms taking prompt action when harmful content is reported.
Intermediary: simply means an online platform or service that hosts, stores, or transmits content created by its users. Social media platforms, websites, and hosting services can all fall within this category.
Synthetically generated information refers to content that has been created or significantly altered using AI in a way that can make it appear real. This includes many forms of AI-generated images, videos, and audio.
A takedown notice is a formal request asking a platform to remove unlawful or harmful content. Once a valid notice is received, the platform may have a legally prescribed period within which it must act.
An injunction is a court order requiring someone to do something or stop doing something. In AI-related cases, courts may issue broader orders to prevent similar content from being created or shared in the future.
Finally, “due diligence obligations” refer to the steps platforms are legally required to take to identify, prevent, and respond to harmful content. The idea is to move beyond simply waiting for victims to complain and encourage platforms to take more proactive responsibility.
Conclusion
NCII is no longer a niche digital-rights issue. It is a growing form of gender-based violence, made even more dangerous by AI tools that allow intimate images to be created and shared with very little effort or cost. The legal developments between 2024 and 2026 show that governments are beginning to take the problem seriously, from the US federal takedown law and EU regulations to the UK’s stronger platform duties and India’s new rules on AI-generated content.
But laws alone cannot solve the problem. A fast takedown rule means little if a survivor does not know where to report the abuse or has to spend hours tracking the same image across different platforms. Cross-border enforcement remains difficult, and international cooperation is still developing. Survivors need more than legislation; they need simple reporting systems, sensitive institutional support, and platforms that can detect harmful content before it spreads.
The law has finally started to catch up with the technology. The real question now is whether it can move quickly enough to protect the people most affected by it.
References
1. Federal Trade Commission, “Take It Down Act Enforcement Starts Now: What to Know About the FTC and TIDA” (2026).Clickable
2. South West Grid for Learning (SWGfL), “The Scale of Non-Consensual Intimate Image (NCII) Abuse: A Data-Driven Global Analysis.”Clickable
3. House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee, Tackling Non-Consensual Intimate Image Abuse, Fourth Report of Session 2024–25 (5 March 2025). clickable
4. Storyboard18, “Delhi HC Protects Sadhguru’s Personality Rights from AI Misuse” (2025). Clickable
5. Asia Financial, “India’s New 3-Hour Content Takedown Demand ‘Impossible’: Experts” (11 February 2026). Clickable
6. Sadhguru Jagadish Vasudev & Anr. v. Igor Isakov & Ors., CS(COMM) 578/2025, Delhi High Court, Order dated 30 May 2025.
7. Hrithik Roshan v. Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors., CS(COMM) 1107/2025, Delhi High Court, Order dated 15 October 2025.
