Coercive Control Goes Digital: Why U.S. Domestic Violence Law Must Catch Up

By: Paris Williams

U.S. domestic violence law was built on a legal framework that prioritized physical harm and visible injury.[1] Historically, American courts and law enforcement were reluctant to intervene in domestic matters, citing the sanctity of the home and a constitutional zone of privacy.[2] This narrow focus left victims of psychological, economic, and nonphysical abuse without meaningful protection.[3]

Over time, courts and legislatures began recognizing that intimate partner violence (IPV) is fundamentally about power and control rather than isolated physical assaults.[4] IPV encompasses physical violence, sexual violence, stalking, and psychological aggression used to gain or maintain dominance over a partner.[5] Psychological abuse escalates into coercive control when emotional harm is combined with sustained patterns of domination, isolation, and deprivation of autonomy.[6]

Coercive control operates by undermining a victim’s liberty, freedom, and dignity through cumulative conduct rather than discrete acts.[7] Abusers may restrict access to finances, employment, education, reproductive care, and social relationships while using threats to maintain control.[8]

Stalking and constant surveillance are common features, reinforcing fear and dependence.[9] Technology has significantly expanded the reach of coercive control.[10] Technology-facilitated coercive control includes hacking accounts, impersonation, persistent digital harassment, GPS tracking, spyware, smart-home manipulation, and threats to distribute intimate images.[11] These tactics allow abusers to overcome geographic boundaries and exert control continuously, even after separation.[12]

Despite the severity of this abuse, legal responses often shift responsibility onto victims rather than addressing the perpetrator’s conduct.[13] Victims are frequently advised to change phone numbers, delete accounts, or disengage from technology altogether.[14] This approach isolates survivors, undermines safety planning, and eliminates critical evidence while failing to hold abusers accountable.[15]

Comparative legal frameworks demonstrate more effective approaches. Scotland’s Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 criminalizes psychological and coercive abuse and evaluates conduct based on cumulative harm.[16] Washington State similarly recognizes coercive control as domestic violence and explicitly includes technology-facilitated abuse within its statutory framework.[17]

Expanding coercive control statutes in the United States raises constitutional concerns related to vagueness, overbreadth, and due process.[18] However, carefully drafted statutes that define coercive control as a pattern of conduct interfering with personal liberty can withstand constitutional scrutiny.[19] By regulating demonstrable conduct and cumulative harm rather than isolated speech or intent, coercive control laws target abuse rather than protected expression.[20]

As technology evolves, domestic violence law must adapt accordingly.[21] Abuse is no longer confined to physical injury or shared spaces but is increasingly carried out through devices, networks, and digital surveillance.[22] Recognizing coercive control, including its technological forms, is essential to providing meaningful protection to survivors.[23]

 

Link to Image Source: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https%3A%2F%2Fthedefenders.net%2Fblogs%2Fnew-law-nevada-makes-changes-to-domestic-violence-laws%2F&ved=0CBYQjRxqFwoTCPjhk7fa3JMDFQAAAAAdAAAAABAI&opi=89978449

[1] See Bradley v. State, 1 Miss. (1 Walker) 156 (1824); Fulgham v. State, 46 Ala. 143 (1871).

[2] Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484-86 (1965).

[3] Id.

[4] Id. at 5-6.

[5] Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, About Intimate Partner Violence (cited in paper).

[6] Evan Stark, Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life (2007).

[7] Id.

[8] Id.; Susanne Lohmann, Sean Cowlishaw, Luke Ney, Meaghan O’Donnell & Kim Felmingham, The Trauma and Mental Health Impacts of Coercive Control: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, 25 Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 630, 630 (2024), https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380231162972.

[9] Lohamann, supra note 8 at 630.

[10] Madison Lo, A Domestic Violence Dystopia: Abuse via the Internet of Things, 109 Calif. L. Rev. 277 (2021).

[11]  Madison Lo, Note, A Domestic Violence Dystopia: Abuse via the Internet of Things and Remedies Under Current Law, 109 Calif. L. Rev. 277, 278 (2021); N.Y. State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence, Technology Safety for Survivors (cited in paper).

[12] Lo, supra note 11 at 284.

[13] Diana Freed et al., Digital Technologies and Intimate Partner Violence, 15 Violence Against Women (2020).

[14] Id.

[15] Elizabeth Yardley, Technology-Facilitated Domestic Abuse in Political Economy: A New Theoretical Framework, 26 Violence Against Women 1, 12-13 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801220947172.

[16] Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, §§ 1-3.

[17] Wash. Rev. Code § 7.105.010; State v. Abdi-Issa, 199 Wn.2d 163 (2022); Matter of Timaeus, 34 Wash. App 2d. 670 (2025).

[18] Erin Sheley, Criminalizing Coercive Control Within the Limits of Due Process, 70 Duke L.J. 1321 (2021).

[19] Id. at 1338-40.

[20] Id. at 1342-45; Erin Sheley, Criminalizing Coercive Control Within the Limits of Due Process, 70 Duke L.J. 1321, 1340-1345 (2021), https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol70/iss6/2.

[21] Diana Freed et al., Digital Technologies and Intimate Partner Violence: A Qualitative Analysis with Multiple Stakeholders, 1, 15 Violence Against Women (2020), https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801220947172.

[22] Molly Dragiewicz et al., Technology Facilitated Coercive Control: Domestic Violence and the Competing Roles of Digital Media Platforms, 18 Feminist Media Studies 609,  630 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2018.1447341.

[23] Id.