U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART I— CRIMES › Chapter CHAPTER 110— SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF CHILDREN

18 U.S.C. § 2258E

Definitions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
In sections 2258A through 2258E—(1) the terms “attorney for the government” and “State” have the meanings given those terms in rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure;(2) the term “electronic communication service” has the meaning given that term in section 2510;(3) the term “electronic mail address” has the meaning given that term in section 3 of the CAN–SPAM Act of 2003 (15 U.S.C. 7702);(4) the term “Internet” has the meaning given that term in section 1101 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note);(5) the term “remote computing service” has the meaning given that term in section 2711;(6) the term “provider” means an electronic communication service provider or remote computing service;(7) the term “NCMEC” means the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children; and(8) the term “website” means any collection of material placed in a computer server-based file archive so that it is publicly accessible, over the Internet, using hypertext transfer protocol or any successor protocol.(Added Pub. L. 110–401, title V, § 501(a), Oct. 13, 2008, 122 Stat. 4250; amended Pub. L. 115–395, § 6, Dec. 21, 2018, 132 Stat. 5294.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, referred to in par. (1), are set out in the Appendix to this title.

Section 1101 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act, referred to in par. (4), is section 1101 of title XI of div. C of Pub. L. 105–277, which is set out in a note under section 151 of Title 47, Telecommunications.

Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–395, § 6(1), substituted “2258E” for “2258D” in introductory provisions.

Pars. (6) to (8). Pub. L. 115–395, § 6(2)–(4), added pars. (6) and (7) and redesignated former par. (6) as (8).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2020–2025 · leading case: United States v. Christopher Landreneau
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Christopher Landreneau (2020) ca5 “See 18 U.S.C. § 2258E(6) (definition of “provider” as utilized in 18 U.”
State v. Henz (2022) nmctapp “See also 18 U.S.C. § 2258E(6) (defining “provider” as “an electronic communication service provider or remote computing service”).”
State v. Henz (2022) nmctapp “See also 18 U.S.C. § 2258E(6) (defining “provider” as “an electronic communication service provider or remote computing service”).”
People v. Rowland (2022) calctapp “”]; 18 U.S.C. § 2258E(6).) The report to NCMEC must include, among other information, the service provider’s “individual point of contact” (18 U.”
Commonwealth v. Dunn (2024) mass “2 1 Under Federal law, a provider is defined as "an electronic communication service provider or remote computing service," 18 U.S.C. § 2258E(6), and is obligated to make a report of any suspected online child sexual exploitation "as soon as reasonably possible" to the…”
Lawshe v. Verizon Communications Inc. (2025) flmd “” 18 U.S.C. § 2258E. No party disputes that Verizon and Synchronoss are providers.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 2258E(6) — 5 cases
United States v. Christopher Landreneau (2020) ca5 “See 18 U.S.C. § 2258E(6) (definition of “provider” as utilized in 18 U.”
State v. Henz (2022) nmctapp “See also 18 U.S.C. § 2258E(6) (defining “provider” as “an electronic communication service provider or remote computing service”).”
State v. Henz (2022) nmctapp “See also 18 U.S.C. § 2258E(6) (defining “provider” as “an electronic communication service provider or remote computing service”).”
People v. Rowland (2022) calctapp “”]; 18 U.S.C. § 2258E(6).) The report to NCMEC must include, among other information, the service provider’s “individual point of contact” (18 U.”
Commonwealth v. Dunn (2024) mass “2 1 Under Federal law, a provider is defined as "an electronic communication service provider or remote computing service," 18 U.S.C. § 2258E(6), and is obligated to make a report of any suspected online child sexual exploitation "as soon as reasonably possible" to the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.