S.M.A.C.C. opinion explainer (with references): what today’s “48-hour takedown” announcement really means, what it doesn’t mean, and what the law already says about “intimate”
Disclaimer (important): This is S.M.A.C.C.’s opinion and practical commentary for creators and the wider community. It is not legal advice. If legal certainty is needed for a specific situation, obtain qualified advice.
1) Today’s press release: what was announced
The Government announcement is that online services would be required to remove non-consensual intimate images within 48 hours of being reported, with serious sanctions for platforms that fail to comply.
Major reporting summarises the stated consequences as including fines up to 10% of worldwide revenue and potential UK service blocking for persistent non-compliance.
2) Who is sponsoring / fronting the announcement (today)
The Government press release is published on GOV.UK “From”:
- Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT)
- The Rt Hon Liz Kendall MP
- Alex Davies-Jones MP
- The Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer KCB KC MP
S.M.A.C.C. view (opinion): this matters because it signals the policy intent is not merely “guidance to platforms” but an attempt to hardwire a measurable enforcement obligation into the online safety enforcement model.
3) What the “amendment” is (and why this is being talked about as new)
Reporting describes this as being delivered via an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, with Ofcom positioned as the enforcing regulator.
Crucial clarity: until Parliament passes the Bill (including any amendment text) and it commences, a “48-hour” duty is a proposal/policy commitment, not a currently operative statutory deadline.
4) The key point: much of the underlying illegality already exists
Reuters is explicit that posting/sharing non-consensual intimate images is already illegal, but victims often struggle to keep content down and platforms do not act consistently.
S.M.A.C.C. view (opinion): the centre of gravity here is platform accountability and speed (and preventing re-uploads), rather than redefining what intimate image abuse is.
5) “There is nothing new in this” — what that means precisely
It is accurate to say that the core criminal law prohibiting sharing intimate images without consent already exists(and has been modernised recently).
What may be new (if enacted) is:
- a hard 48-hour removal clock once properly reported, and
- stronger expectations around re-upload prevention and “report once” operational workflows.
6) The “actual law” creators can cite today (primary sources)
The core modern offence is in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, section 66B, which makes it an offence to intentionally share (or threaten to share) a photograph/film showing a person in an “intimate state” without consent (and without a reasonable belief in consent), with different offence routes depending on intent/purpose.
A Government circular summarises the Online Safety Act’s creation of new offences in this area and how they operate.
7) The earlier offence and what changed previously (not today)
The CPS explains that the older “revenge porn” offence in Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 s33 was repealed and replaced with the newer SOA 2003 s66B framework (with s33 still relevant to conduct before commencement).
A parliamentary committee publication on “Clarifying the law on intimate image abuse” also describes the replacement of earlier offences by the Online Safety Act 2023 with new sharing offences at s66B.
S.M.A.C.C. view (opinion): this is why it can feel like “today’s announcement is being marketed as new”, when in reality the most significant “new law” step for creators was already the prior modernisation of the criminal offence structure.
8) What “intimate” means in law (the operational definition to anchor debates)
The statutory concept is an “intimate state”. The CPS guidance is a useful operational summary for creators: it explains that the offence hinges on whether the image shows (or appears to show) someone in an intimate state and whether there was consent/reasonable belief in consent, and it links to the detailed statutory framing.
The legislation text for s66B itself is available on legislation.gov.uk and sets out the core elements of the offence.
9) The miniskirt example (applied to “intimate state” reasoning)
Using the “intimate state” concept (and the practical reading in CPS guidance):
- Typically not intimate: a person walking away in a miniskirt where no underwear is visible, filmed incidentally as part of a general street scene (not targeted, not zoomed, not sexualised).
- Likely intimate / high-risk: a shot where undergarments are visible, or framing is designed to capture underwear exposure (even in public).
S.M.A.C.C. practical rule (opinion): if the camera choice, angle, zoom, or edit is about capturing underwear/exposure or humiliation, treat it as intimate/exploitative and do not publish.
10) How this is supposed to “hold platforms accountable” (even before any new 48-hour duty)
Ofcom has stated that, under the Online Safety Act’s illegal content duties, platforms must begin tackling illegal material and can be enforced against for failures.
Ofcom also announced it is fast-tracking decisions on measures to block illegal intimate images, consistent with the policy direction that platforms should prevent re-uploads and reduce availability at scale.
11) What this does not Mean (important for creators and the public)
Based on what has been published, this does not mean:
- “Any video containing anyone who didn’t consent must be taken down in 48 hours.”
- “Street scenes, town walkthroughs, travel vlogs are automatically illegal if someone appears in frame.”
- “Filming a house exterior or public place is automatically ‘intimate’.”
The policy target is non-consensual intimate image abuse, and the proposed mechanism is to force faster, more consistent platform removal after report.
12) Where S.M.A.C.C. fits
S.M.A.C.C. members are already expected to meet higher standards than minimum legal compliance (privacy/safeguarding, consent in sensitive contexts, no covert/exploitative filming, and AI/synthetic media disclosure). In S.M.A.C.C.’s view, the creator-side behavioural standard should not need to change; what may change is the speed and force of platform enforcement.
Sources (today’s press + legal anchors)
- GOV.UK press release and sponsors (DSIT; Liz Kendall; Alex Davies-Jones; Keir Starmer).
- Reuters summary of the proposed 48-hour duty, enforcement consequences, and “already illegal” context.
- CPS guidance on the offences and how the law is framed in practice.
- Sexual Offences Act 2003, section 66B (primary legislation text).
- Government circular on Online Safety Act new criminal offences.
- Parliamentary committee publication on clarifying intimate image abuse law.
