Jessica JohnsonThe civil lawsuit filed by model Nina Agdal against MMA fighter Dillon Danis is still moving forward in 2026 — though slowly. Danis' legal team has requested yet another delay to his deposition, citing a severe concussion he allegedly sustained during a brawl involving members of Islam Makhachev's team at UFC 322 in New York City. The concussion, they say, left Danis unable to travel from California to New Jersey, where the deposition was scheduled.
Agdal is not waiting on sympathy. Her lawsuit alleges Danis deliberately published explicit images and doctored photos of her during the lead-up to her public relationship with Logan Paul — a months-long campaign she says caused significant emotional distress and reputational harm. She is seeking damages of no less than $150,000 per violation under federal law.
The case has become one of the most publicly visible examples of what legal advocates call "image-based sexual abuse" — and it raises questions that apply far beyond celebrities.
What Nina Agdal Is Alleging
The lawsuit centers on allegations that Danis repeatedly posted intimate images and manipulated photos of Agdal on social media without her consent. The posts were accompanied by harassing commentary designed, she alleges, to humiliate and destabilize her publicly.
This is not a defamation case in the traditional sense. Danis did not merely say false things — he allegedly published visual material. That distinction matters significantly for the legal theory Agdal is pursuing.
Her legal team is pursuing claims under federal civil law, specifically provisions designed to address the sharing of intimate visual depictions without consent. The damages demand of $150,000 per violation reflects the statutory structure of these laws, which allow for minimum damages per individual image or post rather than requiring proof of total financial harm.
The Federal Law Behind the Case
In 2022, as part of the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, Congress created a federal civil cause of action for victims of non-consensual intimate image sharing. The law allows any person whose intimate visual image is disclosed without consent — and who did not consent to that disclosure — to sue the person responsible in federal court.
The statute covers images that depict a person engaged in a sexual act, in a state of undress that exposes intimate parts, or created to give the appearance of such content — which is why manipulated or digitally altered images like those Agdal alleges were posted can also fall under the law.
Key provisions include:
- No need to prove financial harm. The law allows statutory damages of a minimum amount per violation, meaning a victim can pursue compensation even before calculating concrete economic loss.
- Punitive damages are available. Courts may award additional damages to punish particularly egregious conduct.
- Injunctive relief is available. A court can order the defendant to remove content and stop future posting.
- Attorney's fees may be recoverable. If you prevail, the court may require the defendant to pay your legal costs.
The DOJ's Office on Violence Against Women provides resources for victims navigating federal legal options in cases involving intimate partner violence, sexual abuse, and image-based harassment.
Why Deposition Delays Matter in Civil Cases
The procedural dispute in the Danis case illustrates something many people don't understand about civil litigation: it can be slow, strategic, and exhausting by design.
In a civil lawsuit, the deposition is one of the most important stages of discovery. It allows the opposing party to question the defendant under oath, before trial, with a court reporter recording every answer. Those answers can be used as evidence at trial. A witness who changes their story between deposition and trial faces significant credibility problems.
Delaying a deposition is therefore not a neutral act. Courts take a skeptical view of repeated delays, particularly when they appear strategic. While a documented medical emergency can justify a brief postponement, courts generally require the delay to be specifically tied to the condition — not used as an open-ended excuse to avoid testimony.
If the court determines that a party is abusing medical justifications to stall discovery, it can impose sanctions, draw adverse inferences, or order depositions to proceed by video conference to eliminate travel requirements.
What Victims of Non-Consensual Image Sharing Can Do
The Agdal-Danis case is unusually public, but the underlying harm it addresses is common. Estimates suggest tens of thousands of Americans are affected by non-consensual image sharing each year.
If you or someone you know has been targeted, the legal options in 2026 include:
Federal civil lawsuit. As described above, federal law now provides a direct avenue to sue in federal court without proving specific financial damages. A successful plaintiff can receive statutory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief requiring takedowns.
State law claims. Forty-eight states now have criminal or civil laws addressing non-consensual intimate image sharing, some with more expansive coverage than federal law. State law may also allow claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and harassment.
Platform reporting and content takedown. Most major social media platforms have processes for reporting and removing non-consensual intimate images. Some, including Meta, Google, and Microsoft, participate in a hash-matching consortium that prevents the same image from being re-uploaded.
Preservation of evidence. Before images are removed, capturing screenshots with timestamps, documenting platform URLs, and preserving any related messages is essential for any future legal action. An attorney can advise on the right order of operations to protect your case.
When to Contact a Lawyer
Non-consensual image sharing is not a civil issue to navigate alone. The legal window for pursuing claims may be limited by statutes of limitations, and the technical requirements for evidence preservation require professional guidance.
If you have been a victim of this conduct, consulting a civil attorney who handles privacy, harassment, or technology law is the most important first step. Many offer free initial consultations for cases of this type.
What the Agdal-Danis case demonstrates — despite its celebrity framing — is that federal law now takes image-based abuse seriously. You do not need to be a public figure to use it.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney for guidance specific to your situation.
