N.J. woman awarded $8.7 million after a man allegedly stole her naked photos and posted them online
Her legal team believes it’s the biggest judgment under a 2022 federal law.
A federal judge awarded a New Jersey woman $8.7 million in damages Monday after a Philadelphia man allegedly stole naked photos stored on her phone, sent them to himself, and repeatedly posted them on websites, including 4chan, with her identifying information.
Still, the woman at the center of the suit, a Gloucester County photographer identified only as J.G. out of privacy concerns, said it was never about the money, which she has little hope of collecting. The woman, who used to be social and outgoing, has had her worldview altered by the ordeal, afraid to be in large crowds, work in her field, or host dinner parties.
“It was about people listening and being heard and being believed, and that it matters, and that we could do something,” she said in an interview after the judgment was issued.
The defendant, Tyler Jones, 33, had no attorney in the case and was not immediately available for comment. It’s unclear if Jones was still in Philadelphia Industrial Correctional Center custody when U.S. District Judge Edward S. Kiel issued his opinion. The Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General charged Jones last week with dozens of offenses, alleging that he stole nude images of five other individuals in Philadelphia and posted them without their consent. Charges in those cases include unlawful use of a computer, unlawful duplication, invasion of privacy, and unlawful dissemination. Court records show Jones posted bail and was released from custody sometime Monday.
The Philadelphia victims largely credit the Jersey woman for bringing their cases to police attention.
“First J.G. fought for the truth, next she fought for the others affected, and lastly, only after helping everyone else, she fought for herself,” said Cali Madia, one of J.G.’s attorneys. “We’re thrilled that Judge Kiel recognized the true harms felt by victims of image-based sexual abuse and are hopeful that courts around the country — criminal and civil — will take note.”
J.G. met Jones through a friend who was dating him at the time. At one point, the suit said, Jones asked J.G. to borrow her phone, claiming his had died. According to the suit, that is how he found personal nude images of J.G. and sent them to himself, without her knowledge.
It wasn’t until December 2023 that J.G. learned someone had been posting her naked images on websites like 4chan, an online message board known for racist and explicit content, for more than two years. She said an unknown Instagram account had started to message people she knew and share the photos.
The lawsuit outlined how J.G. entered a deep depression and was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the ordeal. Working with 4chan and Meta, J.G.’s attorneys said, they obtained IP addresses connected to Jones and posts of nude photographs of at least seven other individuals.
J.G. would also learn that Jones had been accused in 2013 of hiding his iPhone in a bathroom in Switzerland to film two women and a 17-year-old girl undressing. He pleaded guilty to invasion of privacy and criminal use of a communication device.
She filed the suit almost a year ago in an effort to “finally be able to get some answers” on the record. Jones never responded to the complaint, however, which led to a default judgment against him. He made an appearance at an inquest in May ordered by Kiel to determine the amount that should be awarded in damages, but pleaded the Fifth to many of the questions.
J.G. was awarded more than $8.7 million, almost all of what her legal team asked. The sum includes $5 million in punitive damages and $3 million for pain and suffering.
“Due to the nature of the internet, I find that it is reasonable — and unfortunately, expected — for plaintiff to worry that her intimate images will resurface,” Kiel wrote.
A relatively new federal legal pathway for victims
Advocates of victims who have been subjected to what has been termed image-based sexual abuse have long argued that the legal avenues to hold perpetrators accountable have been imperfect. Victims have had to navigate a patchwork of state and federal laws. Civil suits can become the only path to justice for plaintiffs if their criminal cases fall short, but such approaches have met with varying degrees of success.
In 2018, a California woman won a $6.4 million judgment in federal court, claiming copyright infringement after an ex-boyfriend posted photos she had sent him online. It was one of the biggest judgments at the time in a “revenge porn” case.
Texas adopted a “revenge porn” law in 2015. Eight years later, a Harris County jury awarded a victim $1.2 billion after her ex-boyfriend posted nude images of her online post-breakup and without her consent.
And in 2018, a professor cited a violation of New York City’s administrative code in her image-based sexual abuse lawsuit against a former comedian boyfriend. At the time, the administrative code was stronger than state law in providing relief. The woman was awarded $30 million in February 2024.
New York-based firm Veridian Legal, which represented J.G., believes her judgment is the largest awarded to a victim under the Violence Against Women Act, which was reauthorized by Congress in 2022. Tweaks made in the reauthorization created the basis for suing in federal court and “specified that the court may award damages and injunctive relief to order the defendant to stop distributing the image, while allowing the plaintiff to remain anonymous via the use of a pseudonym.”
In his opinion, Kiel said Jones disregarded J.G.’s health and safety and “acted with malice. He said $5 million in punitive damages was appropriate because it “deters similar reprehensible conduct in the future.”
It’s a message J.G. and her legal team hope makes other people think twice before posting intimate photos of a person without consent.
“Even though no number will restore J.G.’s sense of privacy or peace of mind, this decision should send a clear message to those who are considering ignoring consent and common decency: There will be repercussions,” Madia said.