What is it?
Many of the world’s major online platforms report online child sexual exploitation to NCMEC’s CyberTipline. Reports with sufficient information form the basis for recoveries of children from abusive situations, as well as law enforcement investigations of offenders around the world, while other reports lack the information necessary to support further action in protecting children.
NCMEC's Position:
There should be legislative incentives to encourage online platforms to include user and child victim information, in addition to other substantive details, in CyberTipline reports about online child sexual exploitation.
Why does it matter?
Under U.S. law (18 U.S.C. § 2258A), U.S.-based online platforms are required to report to the CyberTipline when they become aware of child sexual abuse material (CSAM), online enticement of children, and child sex trafficking on their systems. The requirement to report online enticement and child sex trafficking was added in legislation enacted in 2024. The law does not require online platforms to provide any specific information about the offense being reported. When a CyberTipline report includes sufficient details, law enforcement can review and assess the reporting information, intervene to safeguard children from abuse, and take enforcement actions against offenders. Unfortunately, the CyberTipline receives many reports that do not include basic information needed for NCMEC to identify a potential location of the incident or child and/or for law enforcement to protect the victimized child. These reports add to the volume that must be analyzed but do not help prevent or stop the abuse that may be occurring.
As the volume of CyberTipline reports continues to grow, investigative and analytical resources are too limited to spend on reports lacking sufficient details. More significantly, every report concerning online child sexual exploitation that lacks substantive information is a missed opportunity to protect a vulnerable child and hold offenders accountable.
What context is relevant?
Under U.S. law (18 U.S.C. § 2258A), U.S.-based online platforms are required to report to the CyberTipline when they become aware of child sexual abuse material (CSAM), online enticement of children, and child sex trafficking on their systems. The requirement to report online enticement and child sex trafficking was added in legislation enacted in 2024. The law does not require online platforms to provide any specific information about the offense being reported. When a CyberTipline report includes sufficient details, law enforcement can review and assess the reporting information, intervene to safeguard children from abuse, and take enforcement actions against offenders. Unfortunately, the CyberTipline receives many reports that do not include basic information needed for NCMEC to identify a potential location of the incident or child and/or for law enforcement to protect the victimized child. These reports add to the volume that must be analyzed but do not help prevent or stop the abuse that may be occurring.
As the volume of CyberTipline reports continues to grow, investigative and analytical resources are too limited to spend on reports lacking sufficient details. More significantly, every report concerning online child sexual exploitation that lacks substantive information is a missed opportunity to protect a vulnerable child and hold offenders accountable.
What does the data reveal?
NCMEC designated as “informational”—for any of the three reasons described above—about 37% (11 million) of all CyberTipline reports in 2021, about 51% (15 million) in 2022, and about 50% (18 million) in 2023.
To encourage submission of higher-quality reports, NCMEC notifies companies when their reports consistently lack substantive details. Notifications are provided on reports containing so little information that it is impossible to identify a relevant jurisdiction to which the report should be referred. From 2021 through 2023, this subset of “informational” reports accounted for approximately 4% of all CyberTipline reports.
What have survivors said about it?
Some survivors have observed that many online platforms already hold significant amounts of data relating to their users. When online platforms withhold those details from reports about suspected online child sexual exploitation, questions arise about their motivation to prioritize other interests (perhaps profit or privacy) over child safety.
Survivors also recognize that robust reporting is only one important element in responding to online child sexual exploitation. Governments must also ensure that law enforcement agencies receiving those reports are adequately trained and equipped to investigate reported allegations.
While this position statement specifically addresses gaps in U.S. laws, some survivors have called for more robust reporting requirements to be adopted in other jurisdictions as well.
As a teacher, I am a mandated reporter. I must fill out an extensive form or speak directly to an individual when I suspect abuse. [Online platforms] are interacting with abusers and victims. They should be tasked with protecting children and the general public, both domestically and globally. They are in fact complicit in their facilitation of the abuse if they do not provide a robust report.
- Survivor
What drives opposing viewpoints?
Opposition to more robust reporting is partially rooted in the financial cost and technical complexity for online platforms to comply. Many online platforms submit automated reports at relatively low cost compared to reports made after human moderator and/or legal review, which online platforms may consider necessary if disclosure of more detailed information is required.
Additionally, some online platforms and advocates for user privacy object to disclosures of larger volumes of substantive information at the time of reporting. These online platforms and advocates argue that such disclosures should only be made on a case-by-case basis upon request from law enforcement and/or under authority of legal process such as a subpoena or court order.