What This Bill Does
The Romance Scam Prevention Act would require online dating service providers to send a "fraud ban notification" to members who had messaged a user later banned for suspected fraud. The notice would have to identify the banned account, warn that the person may have used a false identity or tried to defraud members, and remind users not to send cash or personal financial information. In most cases the alert would have to go out within 24 hours of the ban, with limited delays allowed for provider judgment or an active law-enforcement request. The bill also gives the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general enforcement power and sets a federal one-year effective date after enactment.
- Requires fraud ban notifications after a member messages an account later banned for suspected fraud.
- Notices must include the banned user’s profile identifier and the most recent message time.
- Providers must warn users not to send cash or personal financial information.
- Standard deadline is within 24 hours, with a possible delay up to 3 days or longer if law enforcement requests it.
- FTC and state attorneys general can enforce the rule; the bill takes effect 1 year after enactment.
Who This Bill Affects
If you use online dating services, this bill would make it more likely you’d get a direct warning after the platform bans an account you had messaged for suspected fraud. That could help you avoid sending money or personal financial information to a scammer, but it also means providers may share more identifying information about banned accounts and recent message timing as part of the alert. For people who do not use dating apps, the bill would have little day-to-day effect.
See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysisCBO Cost Estimate
June 27, 2025H.R. 2481, the Romance Scam Prevention Act, would impose intergovernmental and private-sector mandates, but CBO estimates that the costs to comply with those mandates would not exceed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act thresholds ($103 million and $206 million in 2025, respectively, adjusted annually for inflation). Detailed budget effects should be read in the linked CBO report.
Full CBO report →Who Supports & Opposes This
- Dating app users and potential scam victims Supporters say quick alerts can stop romance scams before victims send money, bank details, or other sensitive information. A clear notice tied to a banned account gives users a direct warning that their contact may have been fraudulent.
- Consumer protection advocates They are likely to back a uniform federal disclosure rule because romance scams often move quickly and cross state lines. The bill’s required warning language, best-practices link, and customer-service contact could improve consumer awareness at the moment risk is highest.
- Law enforcement agencies Investigators may support the built-in delay option when an ongoing investigation could be compromised by immediate notice. The bill explicitly allows a delay requested by a law-enforcement official and preserves that investigative window.
- Online dating service providers Platforms may argue the rule imposes operational and compliance costs, including identifying affected members, sending notices within tight deadlines, and maintaining processes for law-enforcement delays. Smaller services could see the burden as especially heavy relative to their size.
- Privacy advocates Some may worry the required notice could reveal more about moderation actions and message timing to users than is necessary, especially where a ban is only based on the provider’s judgment of "significant risk." They may also question whether sharing profile identifiers and recent-message timing could create new privacy concerns.
- Civil liberties and due process advocates Critics may argue the bill relies on a provider’s internal judgment that someone poses a fraud risk, without requiring a formal adjudication. That could lead to notifications based on mistaken or uneven moderation decisions, affecting banned users who may not have engaged in wrongdoing.
Key Implications
-
“"provide a fraud ban notification"”
This creates an affirmative duty for dating platforms to warn past contacts when a user is banned for suspected fraud. In practice, users who had exchanged messages with that account can be alerted before they continue the conversation or send money.
-
“"not later than 24 hours after the fraud ban is initiated"”
The bill pushes platforms to act quickly, which matters because romance scams often escalate fast. The short deadline is meant to catch victims before additional losses occur, while still allowing limited delay in some cases.
-
“"may have been using a false identity or attempting to defraud members"”
The warning is explicitly framed as a possibility, not a finding of guilt. That language is designed to alert users without claiming the banned member was definitively a criminal.
-
“"should not send cash ... or personal financial information"”
This is the bill’s core consumer warning. It aims to reduce the most common scam outcomes by discouraging money transfers and the sharing of sensitive banking or identity data.
-
“"may not be liable ... for a claim based on ... complying"”
The safe harbor reduces the chance that a provider will be sued for sending the required notice. That can make companies more willing to comply quickly, but it also limits remedies for users who think a notification was mishandled.
Latest Status
June 17, 2026
Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 438.
Related Bills
Take Action
Get more from BillBoard
Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.
Ask AI about this billData sourced from api.congress.gov.