Victims can now report platforms that fail to remove intimate photos or videos shared without consent; major tech firms put on notice
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Trade Commission on Monday began enforcing the TAKE IT DOWN Act, a new federal law that requires online platforms to remove nonconsensual intimate images at the request of victims — and launched a dedicated website where survivors can file complaints against companies that fail to comply.
The law, which took effect with a May 19, 2026, compliance deadline for covered platforms, mandates that companies provide a clear process for victims to request removal of intimate photos or videos shared without their consent. Platforms must remove the content, along with known identical copies, within 48 hours of a valid request.
Having someone share an intimate photo or video of you online without your consent can be stressful and overwhelming. These images, including AI-generated deepfakes, can spread quickly and cause real and lasting harm. That’s why Congress passed the TAKE IT DOWN Act—and why the FTC is holding platforms accountable under the law.
The TAKE IT DOWN Act now requires covered platforms—like social media, messaging, and image or video sharing apps and sites—to offer a way for you to request the removal of intimate photos or videos shared online without your consent. But that’s not all. Platforms must remove the intimate photos or videos, and known identical copies, within 48 hours of your request. The law applies to real images, digitally altered images, and deepfakes created with artificial intelligence.
To support enforcement, the FTC unveiled TakeItDown.ftc.gov, a portal where victims and survivors can submit complaints about platforms that have ignored valid removal requests or failed to establish a required takedown process.
“Thanks to First Lady Melania Trump’s dedication, the public, especially children, will have recourse against digital exploitation and extortion,” said FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson. “In the age of AI, anyone can be targeted, and that becomes even more appalling if children are involved. The TAKE IT DOWN Act empowers families and provides the FTC with an effective tool to protect minors against this form of abuse.”
The agency has also published new consumer guidance for victims of nonconsensual intimate image posting, as well as compliance guidance for businesses.
Last week, Chairman Ferguson sent warning letters to 15 major platforms — including Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Snapchat, TikTok, and X — reminding them of their legal obligation to be fully compliant with the TAKE IT DOWN Act by the May 19 deadline.
The FTC enforces Section 3 of the law, which applies to any website, app, or digital service that hosts user-generated content. Violations can result in significant civil penalties.
The agency encouraged anyone who has experienced the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images to visit TakeItDown.ftc.gov to report noncompliant platforms. The FTC also reminded the public that it never demands money, makes threats, or promises prizes.
FTC Fines Cox Media Group, Two Firms Nearly $1 Million Over Bogus ‘Active Listening’ Ad Service
Regulators say companies falsely claimed AI-powered tool could target ads using smart device conversations — and that consumers had opted in
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Trade Commission will force Cox Media Group and two smaller marketing firms to pay a total of $930,000 to settle charges they deceived customers by claiming to offer an AI-powered service that could listen in on smart device conversations to target localized ads — a service that regulators say never actually existed.
In three separate complaints announced Thursday, the FTC alleged that Georgia-based Cox Media Group, New Hampshire-based MindSift LLC, and Wisconsin-based 1010 Digital Works LLC falsely marketed an “Active Listening” service that they claimed used a proprietary algorithm to detect pertinent conversations from smart devices in real time, allowing businesses to target ads to consumers within specific geographic regions.
But the service was not based on voice data at all, the FTC said. And consumers had never opted into any such surveillance.
“Not only did the product these companies marketed not do what they claimed it did, but they also misled potential customers by claiming consumers had opted into this service when it’s clear they did not,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “It is a basic rule of business that you need to be honest with your customers, and these companies failed to do that.”
According to the complaints, the Active Listening service did not listen to conversations or use voice data in any capacity. Nor did it accurately place ads in customers’ desired locations. Instead, the companies were simply reselling email lists obtained from other data brokers — at a significant markup.
The FTC further alleged that all three companies deceived potential customers by claiming consumers had opted into the service. In reality, the companies did not seek or obtain consumers’ consent, according to the complaints. They argued that consumers had “opted in” by agreeing to standard terms of service when downloading mobile apps — a justification the FTC rejected outright.
“Clicking through mandatory terms of service does not constitute ‘opt-in consent’ for such an invasive service or for use of consumers’ voice data from inside their homes,” the agency stated. The FTC noted that even if the service had worked as advertised, the collection of voice data without adequate consent would itself violate federal law.
MindSift and 1010 Digital Works face an additional charge of providing Cox Media Group with the “means and instrumentalities” to deceive customers through marketing materials, sales pitches, and responses to customer questions that misrepresented the service’s capabilities.
Under the proposed settlement orders, Cox Media Group will pay $880,000. MindSift and 1010 Digital Works will each pay $25,000. The money will be used to provide redress to affected customers.
The proposed orders also prohibit all three companies from making any future misrepresentations about the features of their advertising services, the collection and use of voice data, whether consumers have consented to such collection, and the geographic targeting capabilities of their products.
Court Holds Payment Processor Cliq in Contempt, Orders $6.5 Million Sanction for Violating FTC Order
Nevada federal judge finds company and its operators helped scammers evade fraud monitoring, failed to conduct required underwriting
LAS VEGAS — A federal court has held payment processing company Cliq Inc. and its operators in civil contempt for violating a 2015 FTC order, imposing $6.5 million in sanctions for enabling consumer fraud by processing hundreds of millions of dollars for high-risk merchants.
The U.S. District Court in Nevada entered the order on May 13, 2026, finding Cliq — formerly known as Cardflex Inc. — along with executives Andrew Phillips and John Blaugrund in contempt for multiple violations of the 2015 court order designed to prevent the company from facilitating fraud.
“It is a Commission priority to root out fraud in the payments system,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “I am pleased the court held Cliq, Andrew Phillips and John Blaugrund accountable for violating the requirements of the order they agreed to in 2015. As the court concluded, Cliq and its executives assisted and facilitated scammers in avoiding fraud and risk monitoring programs and failed to conduct the 2015 order’s required underwriting. The court’s order should send a strong signal that the Commission will enforce its orders and continue to prioritize rooting out fraud from the American payment system.”
According to the court’s findings, the defendants unlawfully processed hundreds of millions of dollars in transactions for merchants listed on Mastercard’s Member Alert To Control High-risk merchants — commonly known as the MATCH list.
The court concluded that the defendants assisted and facilitated two groups of merchants in avoiding fraud and risk monitoring programs. Tactics included processing so-called “friendly” transactions to mask true chargeback rates and helping merchants process under different names while shifting transactions from closed accounts to other live accounts.
The court also found that Cliq failed to conduct required underwriting, neglecting to collect or verify mandatory business information, ignoring evidence of shell companies, and waiving documentation requirements. Investigators found that the company accepted “obviously false” websites listed on payment processing applications “that they failed to further investigate.”
Additionally, the defendants processed transactions for merchants that “consistently exceeded” the court order’s chargeback thresholds and failed to conduct required investigations or produce written reports to justify continued processing, despite clear red flags. The court found the defendants had “systematically failed to complete [their] reporting obligations” under that provision.
To compensate for the harm caused by these violations, the court imposed $6.5 million in civil contempt sanctions against Cliq, Phillips, and Blaugrund.
About the Author
