A platform is shielded for good faith removals
What the document says“A covered platform shall not be liable for any claim based on the covered platform's good faith disabling of access to, or removal of, material claimed to be a nonconsensual intimate visual depiction based on facts or circumstances from which the unlawful publishing of an intimate visual depiction is apparent, regardless of whether the intimate visual depiction is ultimately determined to be unlawful or not.”
The section shields a covered platform from any claim based on its good faith disabling of access to, or removal of, material claimed to be a nonconsensual intimate visual depiction, where the unlawful publishing is apparent from the facts or circumstances. The shield holds whether or not the depiction is finally determined to be unlawful.
What the document actually says“A covered platform shall not be liable for any claim based on the covered platform's good faith disabling of access to, or removal of, material claimed to be a nonconsensual intimate visual depiction based on facts or circumstances from which the unlawful publishing of an intimate visual depiction is apparent, regardless of whether the intimate visual depiction is ultimately determined to be unlawful or not.”
A site that takes an image down in good faith cannot be sued for it.
This holds even if the image turns out to be legal. What counts is that the site acted honestly.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.