iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
There is no single worldwide ban on deepfake pornography. In England and Wales, a 2025 law made creating or requesting the creation of certain non-consensual synthetic intimate images of adults an offence; sharing intimate images, including deepfakes, was already covered by earlier law. In the United States, federal law criminalizes publishing non-consensual intimate images, including deepfakes. Further UK measures address image-making tools and platform removals, but their enactment does not by itself mean every new duty is already operating.
Is deepfake porn illegal?
It can be, but the answer depends on where the conduct happens and what someone did. “Deepfake porn” is a common description, not a uniform legal category: laws may instead refer to a purported or synthetic intimate image, and their definitions differ. A rule against sharing an image is not automatically a rule against creating it, asking someone else to create it, threatening to share it, or supplying a tool that makes it.
The clearest current comparison in the available official materials is between England and Wales and US federal law. It is not a survey of every US state or every country. In particular, the cited US federal materials establish an offence concerning publication; they do not establish whether federal law separately criminalizes making an image or requesting its creation.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
| Conduct or process | England and Wales | United States federal law |
|---|---|---|
| Creating an adult synthetic intimate image | The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, section 138, creates an offence of creating a purported intimate image of an adult without consent or reasonable belief in consent. (Act explanatory notes) | Not stated in the cited Department of Justice materials; they describe criminalization of non-consensual publication. (US Department of Justice) |
| Requesting creation | Section 138 also creates an offence of requesting creation of a purported intimate image of an adult without consent or reasonable belief in consent. (Act explanatory notes) | Not stated in the cited Department of Justice materials. (US Department of Justice) |
| Sharing or publishing | Sharing intimate images, including deepfakes, was already covered by Sexual Offences Act 2003 section 66B, according to the 2025 Act’s explanatory notes. | The TAKE IT DOWN Act criminalizes non-consensual publication of intimate images, including deepfakes. (US Department of Justice) |
| Threatening to share | The cited materials do not set out the relevant offence or its scope in enough detail to compare it here. | The cited federal materials do not set out the scope of any separate threat offence. |
| Making or supplying image-generation tools | The UK Government describes Crime and Policing Act 2026 provisions concerning making, supplying, or offering to supply a tool or service to generate non-consensual intimate images. The materials also describe planned regulatory work; they do not establish that every related measure is already in practical operation. | Not stated in the cited Department of Justice or FTC materials. |
| Platform removal route | UK Government materials describe a 48-hour removal requirement after an image is flagged, alongside planned Ofcom work and regulatory powers. Commencement and implementation matter; the announcement alone is not proof that the deadline is currently enforceable in every case. | The FTC accepts complaints about platforms that fail to act on valid removal requests or lack a removal-request process through TakeItDown.ftc.gov. The cited materials do not give a general removal deadline. |
What changed in England and Wales?
Creating or commissioning an image
Section 138 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 addresses two acts: creating a purported intimate image of an adult without consent or reasonable belief in consent, and requesting its creation on the same basis. That distinction matters: the person who asks for an image to be made may be covered as well as the person who makes it. The statutory notes distinguish these offences from sharing, which section 66B of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 already covered, including deepfakes. Do not assume that an offence exists in practice from the date a law is passed; the materials cited here do not establish a commencement date for section 138.
Images involving children are governed by separate child sexual abuse image laws, according to the Act’s explanatory notes. The adult-image offence should not be treated as a complete account of the law concerning a child’s image.
Tools, new image offences and removal measures
UK Government materials on the Crime and Policing Act 2026 describe a wider package: criminal offences concerning making, supplying, or offering to supply tools or services for generating non-consensual intimate images; new offences concerning taking or recording intimate images and copying images shared temporarily; deletion orders; and an enabling framework for hashing and a registry of non-consensual intimate images. These are distinct legal and technical measures, not one universal ban. The government materials describe planned Ofcom work and regulatory powers, so passage of the Act should not be read as proof that the full platform and registry process is already running.
On 19 February 2026, a UK Government announcement said flagged images would have to be removed within 48 hours and described possible penalties of up to 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue or blocking services in the UK. These are government descriptions of legislative action and planned regulatory implementation. Before treating the deadline or penalties as currently enforceable in a particular case, check whether the relevant provisions have commenced and whether Ofcom’s implementation applies.
What does US federal law cover?
The US Department of Justice says the TAKE IT DOWN Act criminalizes non-consensual publication of intimate images, including deepfakes. That makes publication the focus of the federal law described in the cited materials. Do not infer from it that every act of creating, requesting, or threatening to share an image is covered by that same federal offence. State laws may also matter, but the sources cited here do not provide a state-by-state comparison.
The FTC’s TakeItDown.ftc.gov is a channel for complaints about platforms that fail to act on valid removal requests or do not provide a removal-request process. It is a regulator complaint route, not a promise that every copy will be removed, and it does not replace contacting local law enforcement or a specialist support service where appropriate.
In May 2026, the US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York announced arrests and charges in two cases involving alleged AI-generated deepfake pornography. The announcement concerns allegations in those cases, not a measure of national prevalence or proof of guilt. Defendants are presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
Rank #4
How widespread is the abuse?
The available figures describe different things—support-service casework, an estimate of images, and website traffic—and should not be combined into a single count of victims.
Recommended Free Tools
- The UK Government reported that the Revenge Porn Helpline supported 22,275 cases involving reported non-consensual intimate images in 2024, a 20.9% increase on the prior year. These are cases handled by the Helpline, not a count of unique victims or all incidents.
- The Helpline estimates that about 3.18 million non-consensual intimate images are shared online each year. The UK Government’s 2026 factsheet says the problem is likely underreported. This is an estimate, not an official census of images or victims.
- My Image, My Choice reported 13 million visits to two large nudification services in January 2024, as cited by the UK Government in 2026. Visits are not unique users, generated images, or total market activity.
- The UK Government’s 2026 factsheet cited an Undress.ai figure of 600,000 photos processed in the first 21 days after one service launched. That is a single-service figure, not a sector-wide total.
- Women were the victim in 71% of calls to the Revenge Porn Helpline concerning intimate images shared without consent, according to its 2023 Annual Report, as cited by the Ministry of Justice in 2026. This describes calls received by a support service; it is not a population-wide victimization rate.
These figures support concern about the scale of reported abuse and the disproportionate representation of women in one service’s calls, but they do not establish a global total or measure every victim’s experience.
Best Value
What can someone do if a deepfake intimate image is shared?
- Use the relevant reporting route. In the UK, the Revenge Porn Helpline provides specialist support for intimate-image abuse. In the US, report a qualifying platform failure to act on a valid removal request, or the lack of a removal-request process, to the FTC at TakeItDown.ftc.gov.
- Consider law enforcement as well as platform reporting. The cited government materials describe criminal offences and reporting channels, but they do not guarantee that a particular report will lead to removal or prosecution.
- Keep expectations specific. A removal duty, where it has commenced and applies, concerns the platform and circumstances covered by that rule. It is not evidence that every copy, mirror, or reupload will disappear everywhere.
When does a law on the books become a working remedy?
For a new measure to help in a real case, several steps may be involved: the law must be enacted, the relevant provision must commence, any required regulations or regulator processes must be in place, and the facts must fit the legal definition. A criminal offence also differs from a platform duty: one can expose an individual to prosecution, while the other can require or regulate a service’s response. UK announcements about 48-hour takedowns, Ofcom powers, and hashing describe a direction of policy, but readers should check implementation rather than assume every process is already available.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
