It takes seconds to make a convincing AI “nude.” It takes even less time for it to spin out of control — an angry ex, a group chat, a manager who sees it, and suddenly you’re under investigation. In Public Act 25-168 (2025) — effective October 1, 2025 — Connecticut created the crime of “unlawful dissemination of an intimate synthetically created image.” Police and prosecutors now have explicit authority to arrest first and sort out the tech later. Here’s what the law targets, how these cases really start, and how I defend them.
What the new law aims at
Creating or sharing digitally altered or AI-generated intimate images (deepfakes) without consent can be charged as a crime in Connecticut.
Expect fast action when schools, workplaces, or domestic breakups are involved — the harm can spread at viral speed.
Penalties (by method of distribution & intent)
Key intent test: Did the person intend to harm the victim when acquiring/creating the image or having it made?
A) Sent to someone by any means (text, AirDrop, printed, etc.)
-
Intent to harm at acquisition/creation: Class A misdemeanor
-
No such intent: Class D misdemeanor
B) Sent to multiple people using an “interactive computer service”
(e.g., internet access or information services, search engines, electronic publishers, or telecom service providers)
-
Intent to harm at acquisition/creation: Class D felony
-
No such intent: Class C misdemeanor
Practical notes: Courts can impose protective orders, no-contact orders, counseling, and other conditions while the case is pending. Suppose the facts involve a current/former partner or family/household member. In that case, the case can be classified as domestic violence and routed to the family-violence docket
How these arrests actually happen
Screenshots + metadata: Investigators pull originals from phones/cloud, trace edits/exports.
Device searches: Seized phones/computers reveal apps, prompts, drafts, and file histories.
Witness web: Classmates, coworkers, or ex-partners supply context and intent (retaliation, threats).
Platform reporting/removal: Content may disappear quickly after reports, but digital traces remain. Preserve evidence first; your lawyer will advise on any next steps.
Who gets charged
Ex-partners after messy breakups.
Students or coworkers after “jokes” that weren’t funny.
Forwarders who didn’t make the image but shared or threatened to share it.
What the State must prove (big picture)
That the image was intimate and synthetically created/altered;
That it was shared or threatened to be shared without consent;
That you knew what it was and acted intentionally, not by accident.
Domestic Violence Classification & FVEP
This offense can be treated as a family violence crime when it involves family/household members or dating partners (current or former). If police mark it as DV:
You’ll be brought to the next-day arraignment, meet with Family Relations, and a protective order may issue (from limited contact to full no-contact).
The case proceeds on the family violence docket, which moves quickly and has added scrutiny.
Family Violence Education Program (FVEP):
For eligible first-time, low-risk DV cases, FVEP can be a strong path to dismissal and erasure.
The judge decides after hearing from the prosecutor and any listed victim.
Typically involves a set number of weekly classes, compliance with any no-contact or counseling conditions, and staying arrest-free.
On successful completion, the charge is dismissed and erased.
Defense angles that work
Identity & authorship: We challenge whether the State can actually prove who created/edited the file.
Authentication: Reposts, compression, and filters corrupt metadata — we attack chain of custody and reliability.
Intent/consent: Context matters — memes, parody, or prior consent can defeat “intent to harm.”
Scope & distribution: Possession isn’t publication; we fight over what “sharing” really means.
Smart first moves if police contact you
Don’t explain the tech. Anything you say can be twisted into “expertise” or intent.
Preserve evidence: Phones, apps, cloud backups, timestamps, chats.
No scrubbing: Deleting files looks like consciousness of guilt.
Call counsel early: We can often shift the case toward diversion (AR or FVEP) or a non-criminal resolution quickly.
Can the AR Program get this dismissed?
Often yes for first-time, low-risk clients — especially where distribution was limited, harm was quickly addressed, and we present a tight mitigation package (counseling, apology letters, verified documentation, structured no-contact plan). I apply for the Accelerated Rehabilitation Program AR on your behalf; the judge decides after hearing from the prosecutor and any victim. Completion = dismissal and erasure.
Collateral fallout you’re not expecting
School & Title IX proceedings running beside the criminal case.
Protective orders limiting contact and social media.
Employment/licensing issues if the image hits a workplace channel.
The internet is forever — which is why evidence preservation and careful legal steps matter from day one.
How do I defend these cases
Forensics first: Trusted expert analysis of edit histories, EXIF, app logs, and device artifacts.
Narrative control: We show prosecutors how the image appeared and why authorship/intent can’t be proved.
Mitigation track (in parallel): Documented steps that protect the complainant and demonstrate accountability, without risking evidence issues.
Sealing the record: Endgame is a clean result — dismissal/erasure or a negotiated outcome that protects your future.
Call to Action
If you’ve been contacted by police — or blindsided by a viral fake — contact me now by calling (203) 357-55 or using my contact page for a confidential plan: Allan F. Friedman Criminal Lawyer. We’ll move quickly on forensics, a digital-evidence strategy, and—where appropriate—AR or FVEP.