Bottom Line Up Front: A federal judge in Tennessee denied a plaintiff’s request to proceed anonymously in an intimate image case, highlighting critical factors that determine when courts will allow pseudonymous litigation in revenge porn lawsuits. The ruling provides essential guidance for litigants navigating the intersection of privacy rights and public court proceedings.
Case Overview
In Doe v. John Roe & XYZ, LLC, decided May 19, 2025, by Judge Robert J. Jonker of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, a plaintiff filed suit under the federal intimate image statute (15 U.S.C. § 6851) alleging unlawful disclosure of intimate images by a former romantic and business partner. The case arose from allegations that after their relationship ended in March 2020, the defendant uploaded identifiable intimate photos and videos to social media accounts without consent.
The plaintiff sought permission to proceed using pseudonyms for all parties and to file identifying materials under seal. However, the court denied these requests, providing important insights into when anonymity will be granted in intimate image litigation.
The Legal Framework for Pseudonymous Litigation
Federal courts begin with a strong presumption favoring open judicial proceedings. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a), parties must be named in the case caption, and courts only allow pseudonymous litigation in “exceptional circumstances.”
The Sixth Circuit applies a four-factor test from Doe v. Porter to determine when a plaintiff’s privacy interests “substantially outweigh” the presumption of openness:
- Whether the plaintiff is challenging governmental activity
- Whether the litigation compels disclosure of information “of the utmost intimacy”
- Whether the case involves potential criminal liability
- Whether the plaintiff is a minor
Courts also consider additional factors, including whether there’s a risk of retaliatory harm and the defendant’s legitimate need to defend publicly.
Why This Court Denied Anonymity
Judge Jonker’s analysis reveals several critical factors that worked against the plaintiff’s anonymity request:
Commercial Nature Distinguished This from Typical Revenge Porn
The court emphasized this was “not a paradigm revenge porn case” but rather involved “a commercial relationship with a romantic tie.” Both the business and personal relationships failed simultaneously, and resolving the commercial dispute necessarily involved examining intimate materials. This commercial context significantly weakened the privacy arguments typically successful in purely personal intimate image cases.
Signed Releases Created Consent Defense
Perhaps most damaging to the plaintiff’s position were broad-form releases she allegedly signed twelve days apart, using both her legal name and stage name. These releases granted defendants “the free and unrestricted permission and right to use any images” of the plaintiff. The existence of these releases suggested the intimate images may have been disclosed with consent, potentially defeating the underlying claims.
Lack of Current Harm
Critically, the court noted that “basic facts are already in the public domain” and found no evidence of ongoing publication of intimate materials online. This factor is crucial for practitioners to understand: courts are more likely to grant anonymity when intimate materials remain accessible online, as public identification of the plaintiff could lead to increased searches and discovery of the harmful content.
Credibility Concerns
The court expressed skepticism about the plaintiff’s claims, noting evidence suggesting the lawsuit might be “sanctionable” and referring to “fraudulent cases.” Courts are particularly reluctant to grant anonymity when they suspect the underlying allegations lack merit.
The Commercial Pornography Exception
This case highlights an important exception in the federal intimate image statute. Under 15 U.S.C. § 6851(b)(4), individuals cannot bring claims for “commercial pornographic content” unless that content was produced through “force, fraud, misrepresentation, or coercion.”
When intimate images arise from commercial relationships, courts will scrutinize whether proper releases were obtained and whether the content falls within this exception. The distinction between commercial and non-commercial intimate images can be dispositive for both the underlying claims and anonymity requests.
Mutual Pseudonymity: A Rare but Strategic Consideration
Unusually, this case involved a request for “mutual pseudonymity” – allowing both plaintiff and defendants to proceed anonymously. This occurs when revealing one party’s identity would effectively expose the other’s, such as in spousal disputes or cases involving closely intertwined personal relationships.
The court rejected this request here, but the concept illustrates sophisticated litigation strategy. When intimate materials involve multiple parties whose identities are interconnected, mutual anonymity may be the only way to protect legitimate privacy interests.
Practical Guidance for Litigants
When Anonymity Requests Are Likely to Succeed
Courts are more inclined to grant pseudonymous litigation when:
- Intimate materials remain accessible online, creating ongoing harm
- The case involves purely personal relationships without commercial elements
- No signed releases or consent agreements exist
- The plaintiff can demonstrate specific, credible threats of retaliation
- The underlying claims appear meritorious
When Anonymity Requests Face Challenges
Conversely, anonymity becomes difficult when:
- Commercial relationships or signed releases are involved
- Intimate materials are no longer publicly accessible
- The plaintiff is an adult public figure
- The defendant has legitimate needs to defend publicly
- The underlying claims appear questionable
Strategic Considerations
Practitioners should carefully evaluate whether intimate materials remain online before filing anonymity motions. If content has been removed, consider whether other factors justify anonymity or whether clients might be better served by proceeding under their real names to avoid drawn-out motion practice.
Implications for Future Intimate Image Litigation
This ruling reinforces that courts will not reflexively grant anonymity in intimate image cases. The analysis must be fact-specific, considering the nature of the relationship, existence of consent agreements, current availability of harmful materials, and the strength of underlying claims.
The decision also demonstrates how commercial elements can fundamentally alter intimate image litigation. When business relationships are involved, courts will apply more rigorous scrutiny to both consent defenses and privacy arguments.
The Broader Legal Landscape
As intimate image litigation continues to evolve under relatively new federal and state statutes, this case provides valuable precedent for how courts balance privacy rights against transparency principles. The ruling suggests courts will take a nuanced approach, carefully weighing the specific circumstances rather than applying blanket rules.
For potential litigants considering intimate image claims, the case underscores the importance of early legal consultation to evaluate both the merits of underlying claims and the likelihood of obtaining anonymity protection.
Conclusion
The Doe v. Roe decision illustrates that while federal law provides meaningful remedies for nonconsensual intimate image disclosure, courts will not automatically grant privacy protections that conflict with fundamental transparency principles. Success in these cases requires careful attention to the specific factual circumstances, the nature of any prior agreements, and the current status of harmful materials online.
Understanding these factors is essential for anyone involved in intimate image litigation, whether as a victim seeking justice or a defendant facing allegations. As this area of law continues to develop, cases like this one will provide crucial guidance for navigating the complex intersection of privacy rights and public court proceedings.