Emily Moreno files lawsuit against Max Miller and his lawyer for allegedly publishing nude photo of daughter

CLEVELAND, Ohio (WOIO) - According to Chandra Law Firm, Emily Moreno, on behalf of her two-year-old daughter, filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit against her ex-husband, U.S. Representative Max Miller, his attorney Aaron Minc, and the law firm Minc LLC, alleging that they recklessly published and distributed an unredacted nude photograph of Miller and Moreno’s daughter displaying her uncovered genitalia online.

According to the Federal lawsuit, it asserts federal claims under 15 U.S.C. § 6851 (civil action relating to disclosure of intimate images), state-law claims for civil liability for criminal acts under R.C. 2307.60, wrongful-intrusion invasion of privacy, negligence, and civil conspiracy.

The federal statute makes it illegal for anyone to disclose intimate visual depictions without consent. The term “disclose” means, the statute says, “to transfer, publish, distribute, or make accessible.” 15 U.S.C. § 6851(b)(1). Intimate visual depictions are defined to include uncovered genitals and the pubic area. 15 U.S.C. § 6851(b)(2), according to the law firms press release.

According to the complaint, seeking to salvage his political reputation amid public attention regarding allegations of abusive behavior toward three women and his daughter, Congressman Miller provided a large collection of documents and media files to his attorney, Aaron Minc. On Sunday, August 2, 2026, during a live video broadcast on X (formerly Twitter) targeting Ms. Moreno, Miller distributed a link to a public Dropbox folder created and owned by Minc and his firm.

The folder contained an unredacted PDF document, the suit alleges, featuring an intimate visual depiction of the two-year-old girl, displaying her uncovered genitalia. A veteran pediatrician reviewed the photo and confirmed it depicts the child’s genitalia, contradicting Minc’s claims to the media that the child is partly clothed.

The complaint details allegations about the defendants’ reckless actions and how they enabled international public access to the intimate image:

Urged public to view electronic folder: According to the complaint, Miller repeatedly urged his broadcast viewers to “take a look at the documents” in the Dropbox folder, actively encouraging the public to review and download the contents.

Massive public distribution: According to the filing, Miller’s two social-media posts linking the public Dropbox folder generated more than 400,000 total views. Minc acknowledged in email correspondence that the intimate photo remained available online for about 23 hours before being removed.

Editor permissions enabled: The lawsuit alleges that Minc initially set the public Dropbox folder permissions to grant editing privileges to any member of the public. And, it claims, when initial viewers deleted the files, Minc restored the folder to an earlier state—republishing the unredacted nude image—and Miller broadcast the updated link for a second time, telling followers, “Dropbox back online. Take a look.”

Identifiable information exposed: The filing highlights that the child’s name appeared unredacted more than 70 times within the same document containing the intimate image.

Admitted pressure and reckless haste: According to the filing, Minc admitted in correspondence regarding the unredacted release that he “was under an enormous amount of pressure to get the files and link live again as quickly as possible.” The complaint alleges that, in his reckless haste to assist Miller’s public-relations assault—and pressured by a furious Miller intent on maligning his ex-wife—Minc failed to properly redact the files containing the toddler’s nude image.

False media denials: According to the complaint, Minc later admitted responsibility for failing to redact the document but then lied to media outlets by claiming the child was partially clothed.

Refusing to account for the damage: Minc refused repeated requests from Ms. Moreno’s counsel to provide download logs or reveal how many times the image was accessed and transferred. He also failed to respond to repeated requests for a plan to undo the damage.

Federal statute mandates $150,000 in liquidated damages per disclosure, according to the law firm.

According to Chandra Law Firm, under 15 U.S.C. § 6851, individuals whose intimate visual depictions are disclosed without affirmative consent in interstate commerce are entitled to statutory liquidated damages of $150,000 for each disclosure and transfer, in addition to attorney fees and injunctive relief. The lawsuit also alleges civil liability for criminal acts under Ohio law, citing violations of R.C. 2907.323(A)(2) (illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material), attempt, and complicity.

19 NEWS has reached out to Miller and his attorney for comment.