If someone sends you an unsolicited explicit image in California, the state’s cyber flashing law lets you sue them in civil court. Civil Code Section 1708.88, added by Senate Bill 53 in September 2022, gives recipients a direct cause of action against any sender who is 18 or older. Damages run from $1,500 to $30,000 when you had previously told the sender to stop, and you can recover actual losses including emotional distress even if you had not.1California Legislative Information. California Civil Code 1708.88 – SB 53
What Section 1708.88 Covers
The statute applies to anyone 18 or older who knowingly sends an image they know or should know is unsolicited, where the image depicts obscene material and is transmitted electronically. Still images and video both qualify, and the law applies regardless of the platform or device used.1California Legislative Information. California Civil Code 1708.88 – SB 53
An image is “unsolicited” when the recipient either never consented to receive it or expressly told the sender not to send it. That second category is what unlocks the stronger damages. The obscenity standard tracks California’s broader legal definition: the material must appeal to prurient interest, depict sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.1California Legislative Information. California Civil Code 1708.88 – SB 53
One boundary matters up front. Section 1708.88 is a civil statute. You sue the sender for money; prosecutors do not file criminal charges under this section itself. Separate criminal laws can apply in specific circumstances, and those are covered further down.
What You Can Recover
What you can win depends on whether you told the sender to stop before they sent the image.
If you received the image without having expressly forbidden it beforehand, you can recover the economic and noneconomic damages actually caused by receiving it, including compensation for emotional distress. You have to prove those losses.1California Legislative Information. California Civil Code 1708.88 – SB 53
If you did tell the sender not to send explicit material and they sent it anyway, you get a stronger set of remedies:
- Statutory damages between $1,500 and $30,000, which you can elect instead of itemizing your actual losses.
- Punitive damages on top of statutory or actual damages, meant to punish especially egregious behavior.
- Attorney’s fees and costs the court can order the sender to pay.
- Injunctive relief, meaning a court order blocking the sender from continuing.
The statutory damages option matters because emotional harm from an unwanted explicit image is real but hard to put a dollar figure on. Being able to claim $1,500 to $30,000 without itemizing losses removes a major barrier to filing suit.1California Legislative Information. California Civil Code 1708.88 – SB 53
The practical takeaway: if the sender is a stranger whose first contact was the image, you are likely in the actual-damages tier. If the sender is someone you had already told to stop, save that message. It is the difference between proving emotional distress and electing a fixed statutory award.
When Criminal Charges Can Also Apply
Section 1708.88 does not create criminal liability, but two other California statutes can reach cyber flashing conduct in specific situations.
Harassment With Intent to Cause Fear
Penal Code Section 653.2 makes it a misdemeanor to send an electronic communication with the intent to place the recipient in reasonable fear for their safety or their family’s safety, when the communication is likely to produce harassment or unwanted physical contact from others. A conviction carries up to one year in county jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both.2California Legislative Information. California Penal Code 653.2
The limit is the intent element. Prosecutors have to show the sender meant to cause fear or provoke third-party harassment. Many cyber flashing incidents will not meet that bar, which is part of why the civil remedy in Section 1708.88 was created.
Sending Explicit Material to a Minor
When the recipient is under 18, the stakes change. Penal Code Section 288.2 makes it a crime to send harmful sexual material to someone the sender knows or believes is a minor, when done with the intent to arouse either party and the intent to engage in sexual contact. The offense is a wobbler, chargeable as either a misdemeanor or a felony.3California Legislative Information. California Penal Code 288.2
If the material depicts a minor engaging in sexual conduct, the felony carries two, three, or five years in state prison. When the material does not depict a minor, the felony version carries 16 months, two years, or three years. The misdemeanor version of either carries up to one year in county jail.3California Legislative Information. California Penal Code 288.2
If a minor received the image, calling the police is not optional. Section 288.2 is the statute that treats the conduct with the seriousness it deserves.
If It Happened at Work or at School
Receiving an unsolicited explicit image from a coworker, supervisor, or client can constitute sexual harassment under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. FEHA prohibits sex-based harassment in any workplace, and an employer who learns about the conduct and fails to act may face liability. You can file a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department, and a Section 1708.88 lawsuit against the sender is available on top of any workplace harassment claim.
In K-12 and higher education, Title IX applies when the conduct occurs within a school’s programs or activities, including on school-provided devices, school networks, and platforms used for instruction. Once a school knows about the harassment, it must respond promptly and explain how a student can file a formal complaint. If a formal complaint is filed, the school has to investigate under a Title IX-compliant grievance process before taking disciplinary action.4U.S. Department of Education. Online or Digital Sexual Harassment under the 2020 Title IX Regulations
Preserving Evidence and Reporting
A Section 1708.88 case rises or falls on what you capture in the first hours.
- Screenshot the image, the sender’s profile or phone number, timestamps, and any surrounding messages. If the image came through a disappearing-message feature, speed is critical.
- Capture the notification, the app or platform, and any account details on the sender’s profile, not just the image itself.
- File a police report even if criminal charges feel unlikely. The report creates an official record that strengthens a civil case, and it is essential if the recipient was a minor.
- Report the sender to the platform. A ban will not compensate you, but it creates documentation and may prevent the sender from targeting others.
- Consult an attorney experienced in digital harassment. A lawyer can tell you whether your facts fit Section 1708.88 and whether to pursue actual damages or elect the $1,500-to-$30,000 statutory award.
If the harassment is ongoing and you fear for your safety, you can also seek a civil harassment restraining order. And if you want the stronger damages tier available for a repeat sender, tell them in writing to stop and save the message. That single step shifts the case from proving emotional distress to electing statutory damages.
Reducing Your Exposure Through Device Settings
Most cyber flashing through proximity-based features like AirDrop or Quick Share is preventable. On iPhones, Apple limits AirDrop’s “Everyone” visibility to 10 minutes at a time before reverting to “Contacts Only,” a change introduced in iOS 16. On Android, Google removed the Quick Share setting that previously allowed anyone to send you files indefinitely. Both platforms require you to manually accept incoming files, so a sender using these tools needs your device to be discoverable and needs you to tap “Accept.”
The more common route now is direct messages on social media, dating apps, and texting, where device-level sharing settings do not help. On those platforms, adjusting privacy settings to restrict who can message you or send you media is the closest equivalent. Technical measures do not replace legal remedies, but they cut down the odds of encountering the problem.