Amara
GENERAL INFORMATION · NOT LEGAL ADVICE
CAL. CIV. CODE §1708.88

Why am I
being sued?

You sent someone a photo of your penis.
They didn't ask for it.
In California, that is against the law.
01 / OBJECTIONS

But what if…

Joining a dating app is consent to be contacted, not consent to receive explicit images. The statute asks whether the recipient consented to receiving that image. Bumble co-sponsored this law specifically because being on a dating app was being treated as an invitation. It is not.

Intent to harm is not an element of the claim. The statute requires only that you knowingly sent an image you knew or reasonably should have known was unsolicited. A joke satisfies every element.

Consent is opt-in, not opt-out. Under the statute an image is unsolicited if the recipient 'has not consented'. Silence is not consent. She did not need to forbid it in advance; you needed a yes.

How the recipient reacted afterward does not create consent, which must exist before the image is sent. People often go silent, deflect, or stay polite out of shock or self-protection. None of that is agreement. The claim accrues the moment the unsolicited image arrives.

A flirtatious conversation is consent to that conversation. Escalating to an explicit image requires its own consent. The statute itself draws this line: an exchange the recipient consented to is not "unsolicited," while one party unilaterally sending explicit content is.

She does not have to prove economic loss. Emotional distress counts as harm under the statute, with no dollar figure required up front. And if she had expressly told you not to send images like that, she can elect statutory damages of $1,500 to $30,000 per image instead of proving actual damages at all.

Ignorance of the law is not a defense, in this case or any other. The statute does not require that you knew about Civil Code §1708.88, only that you knowingly sent an image you knew or reasonably should have known was unsolicited. Not knowing it was illegal doesn't change that you did it.

SB 53 passed the Assembly 76–0 and the Senate 37–0 and was signed September 23, 2022. It is codified at Civil Code §1708.88 and has been in effect since January 1, 2023. Demand letters citing it reference a real, enforceable statute. Whether a particular demand is meritorious is a question for your attorney, but the law itself is settled.
02 / EXPOSURE

It does not matter. She can still sue you, and the cost can be a lot.

YOUR DEFENSE ATTORNEY, THROUGH TRIAL$30,000–$50,000+
STATUTORY DAMAGES, PER IMAGEUP TO $30,000
HER ATTORNEY'S FEES, IF YOU LOSEYOU PAY THEM
COURT COSTS + ADDITIONAL PENALTIESADDED ON
CASES LIKE THIS CAN EASILY EXCEED
$100,000+

Even if you somehow won, you would still be out tens of thousands in your own fees. And the courts can make sure you pay: straight from your paycheck, your bank account, or a lien on your property.

03 / THE LAW

This is not a scam. It is a California law meant to protect women.

It is called the FLASH Act. California passed it in 2022 without a single lawmaker voting against it, and it has been in effect since January 1, 2023. The letter or lawsuit you got cites this real, enforceable law: Civil Code §1708.88.

If all four of these are true for you, and none of the statute's narrow exemptions applies, you are in violation:

You are 18 or older.
You sent an image or video electronically: text, email, dating app, DM, AirDrop.
The image or video you sent shows obscene material, like your genitals.
She did not ask to receive obscene material, she did not agree to recieve it or she said no.
ALL FOUR TRUE → YOU ARE IN VIOLATION OF CIV. CODE §1708.88

(a) A private cause of action lies against a person 18 years of age or older who knowingly sends an image that the person knows or reasonably should know is unsolicited, by electronic means, depicting obscene material.

(b) For purposes of this section: an "image" includes, but is not limited to, a moving visual image. "Obscene material" is a defined legal term: material that, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. An image is "unsolicited" if the recipient has not consented to or has expressly forbidden the receipt of the image.

(c) A prevailing plaintiff who suffers harm may recover economic and noneconomic damages proximately caused by receiving the image, including damages for emotional distress. If the plaintiff had expressly forbidden receiving such images, she may instead elect statutory damages of not less than one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) and not more than thirty thousand dollars ($30,000), and may also seek punitive damages. In either case the court may award reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and other available relief, including injunctive relief.

(d) The section does not apply in a few narrow situations, including a health care provider transmitting an image for a legitimate medical purpose, and an individual who has not expressly opted out of receiving sexually explicit images on a service that offers that option.

Full text at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov (SB 53). This summary is abridged; the official text controls.

04 / NEXT STEPS

ALL FOUR OF THOSE APPLY TO YOU.

Then here is what to do now.

  1. 01
    Accept that this is real.You sent the picture, and now there are consequences. It may not feel fair. It doesn't matter whether it was a bad moment or you genuinely misread the situation: you are in this now, and denial is the most expensive way through it. The men who come to terms with it early resolve these cases faster, cheaper, and with less damage to their lives.
  2. 02
    Take it seriously.A demand letter is usually the step before a filed lawsuit; ignoring it makes it more expensive. If you were served with a summons, the clock is already running (see step 4).
  3. 03
    Do not delete anything.Deleting messages, images, or accounts after learning of a claim can count as destroying evidence, which courts punish severely. Preserve everything.
  4. 04
    If you don't understand how serious this is, talk to a California civil defense attorney.They will explain it to you. If a complaint has been filed and served, you generally have 30 days to respond before a default judgment can be entered against you, meaning she wins automatically.
  5. 05
    Keep all contact focused on the case.If she is representing herself, some direct communication may be unavoidable. Keep it strictly about the case, in writing, civil, and brief. No apologies, explanations, or personal messages: anything you say can be used as harassment or an admission.
  6. 06
    Strongly consider settling.Settling before a lawsuit is filed is usually far cheaper than litigating and losing: you avoid months of legal fees on both sides, the outcome stays in your control instead of a judge's, and the matter stays out of public court records.
05 / FAQ

Questions men in your position ask

No. The FLASH Act is civil only; an earlier version with criminal penalties was dropped. But other conduct (repeated harassment, images sent to minors, stalking) can be criminal under separate laws. A judgment against you is a debt collectible by wage garnishment, bank levy, or lien.

The law applies to images sent on or after January 1, 2023. Civil claims have filing deadlines (statutes of limitation); whether a specific claim is timely is a question for your attorney.

Each unsolicited obscene image can support its own claim, so multiple images multiply your exposure.

That is your decision. Settling before a lawsuit is filed is usually far cheaper than litigating and losing, and it keeps the matter out of public court records. If you want advice on the amount or the terms, a lawyer can review it, and a written release should be part of any settlement so the matter actually ends.

If it genuinely was not you who sent it (someone else had your phone, your account was compromised), tell a lawyer immediately; misidentification is the kind of thing that actually ends a case. If it was you, and the four elements above are true, be realistic: the objections men usually reach for are covered at the top of this page, and none of them is the lifeline it looks like. And do not bother reconstructing a consent story after the fact. What was actually said is in the messages, and she has them. What, if anything, applies to your facts is a question for your attorney, not something to build from the internet.

Yes. Court filings under the FLASH act are public records. Court records can appear in background checks conducted by employers, landlords or any member of the public. This is one reason many of these matters settle before a complaint is filed, and another reason to engage counsel early rather than ignoring a demand letter.

Living in another state does not put you out of reach. She received the image in California, and California courts can take jurisdiction over an out-of-state sender who directs conduct at someone here; that is a fact-specific question, not a safe assumption. A California judgment can also be registered and enforced against you in your home state, and other states (Texas, Virginia) have cyber-flashing laws of their own. Whether jurisdiction holds in your case is a question for your attorney.

Bankruptcy is not the exit it looks like. Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code excepts from discharge debts for "willful and malicious injury" to another person, and a judgment that you knowingly sent an obscene image to someone who did not want it gives her a real argument that yours is exactly that.