Stop SIM Box Scams Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Shreve, Jefferson [R-IN-6]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 1, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to combat telecommunications fraud by banning SIM boxes and empowering federal agencies and mobile service providers with new tools and protections to detect, disrupt, and prosecute their illicit use.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit the manufacture, import, sale, possession, and use of 'SIM boxes,' which are devices designed to obscure call origin or bypass mobile service controls. It grants the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) authority to regulate and enforce these prohibitions, establishes a private right of action for mobile service providers, and provides a safe harbor for providers engaged in anti-fraud activities.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill is a crucial step to curb widespread telecommunications fraud, including robocalls and scams, by targeting the underlying technology used to facilitate these illicit activities. They contend it will protect consumers from deceptive practices, ensure fair competition by preventing the bypass of legitimate network charges, and enhance the integrity of mobile communication networks.
Opponents contend
Potential opponents might raise concerns about the breadth of the 'SIM box' definition and the potential for overreach or unintended consequences for legitimate uses of similar multi-SIM technologies. Some privacy advocates may also scrutinize the safe harbor provisions and expanded information sharing, fearing potential impacts on customer privacy.
The bill is concise, allowing for a quick read, but its technical definitions and legal implications require careful attention to fully grasp its scope and potential impact.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 346(a) to the Communications Act of 1934
Prohibition of SIM Box Activities
This provision makes it illegal for any individual or entity to manufacture, import, sell, lease, advertise, possess, use, or distribute any SIM box. It also prohibits modifying any device to function as a SIM box and assisting others in these activities, specifically targeting devices used to route communications in a way that obscures origin or bypasses network controls.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this direct prohibition is essential to cut off the supply and use of SIM boxes, which are fundamental tools for various telecommunications frauds. It provides a clear legal basis for law enforcement and regulatory action against illicit operations.
Critics contend
While direct opposition to prohibiting fraudulent devices is unlikely, some might argue that a broad prohibition could inadvertently impact legitimate multi-SIM technologies if the definition is not carefully applied, though the bill includes specific exclusions.
Tradeoffs
The primary tension is between creating a strict prohibition to deter fraud and ensuring that the language does not inadvertently criminalize or impede legitimate technological uses or innovations.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 346(c)
FCC Regulatory Authority and Implementation
This section directs the FCC to issue regulations within 180 days of the bill's enactment. These regulations will clarify and refine the definition of 'SIM box' to ensure it covers all functional equivalents while excluding permissible devices. The FCC must also publish and maintain lists of prohibited and permissible devices and establish procedures for manufacturers and distributors to demonstrate compliance and ensure accurate advertising.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 346(e)
Enhanced Enforcement Powers and Private Right of Action
This section strengthens enforcement by allowing each SIM box or each day of a continuing violation to be treated as a separate offense. It authorizes the FCC to issue temporary cease-and-desist orders to immediately halt illegal activities. Crucially, it creates a private right of action, enabling mobile service providers injured by SIM box activities to sue for injunctions, damages, and potentially recover attorney's fees in federal court.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 346(g)
Safe Harbor for Mobile Service Providers
This section provides legal protection to mobile service providers who take actions in good faith and with reasonable belief to detect, identify, locate, mitigate, disrupt, or support enforcement actions against SIM boxes. This includes monitoring their networks and sharing information (including communication records and contents) or access to facilities with federal or state agencies. This safe harbor does not apply to acts unrelated to SIM box enforcement, or those involving willful misconduct, gross negligence, or bad faith.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 346(h)
Definition of SIM Box and Permissible Exclusions
This section defines 'SIM box' as any device, equipment, software, system, or service (including virtualized ones) that enables the automated pooling or concurrent use of two or more SIMs to originate, route, forward, or terminate mobile communications, and is designed to obscure call origin, defeat caller ID authentication, or bypass lawful controls. Crucially, it explicitly excludes devices authorized by the FCC, used by government for official purposes, used solely for recognized testing, or used for internal testing by mobile service providers, or any other device the FCC deems appropriate.
This provision amends existing law to add a new exception to the rules governing the privacy of Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI). It allows mobile service providers to provide assistance to a Federal agency with respect to a SIM box, consistent with the new Section 346, without violating CPNI privacy rules.
Section 2(c), amending Section 222(d) of the Communications Act of 1934
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for modifying existing statutes to align them with new policy objectives. It ensures that the new SIM box enforcement mechanisms do not conflict with established privacy protections, but rather create a specific carve-out.
Case for: Supporters argue that this amendment is essential for effective enforcement against SIM box fraud. CPNI, such as call records and subscriber information, is often critical for federal agencies to identify, track, and prosecute illicit SIM box operations. This provision clarifies the legal basis for providers to share such information in good faith.
Case against: Critics, particularly privacy advocates, might express concern about expanding exceptions to CPNI privacy rules. While specific to SIM box enforcement, any expansion of data sharing authority, even for law enforcement, can be seen as eroding overall privacy protections and could potentially be misused or overused.
Estimated impact: This provision facilitates information sharing between mobile service providers and federal agencies for anti-SIM box fraud efforts, potentially impacting the privacy of communication records for individuals involved in or suspected of SIM box activities.
This section establishes federal preemption, stating that no state or political subdivision can maintain or enforce any law that conflicts or is inconsistent with this Act. However, it includes a crucial carve-out: state laws that impose *more strict* limitations with respect to SIM boxes are explicitly allowed and not considered inconsistent.
Section 2(e)
Why it matters:Preemption clauses are standard in federal legislation to ensure uniformity or set a floor for regulation. The 'more strict' allowance is a common legislative compromise to address states' rights concerns while establishing a federal baseline.
Case for: Supporters argue this preemption clause ensures a consistent national approach to combating SIM box fraud, preventing states from enacting weaker regulations that could create loopholes. The allowance for 'more strict' state laws provides flexibility, enabling states to address local concerns with stronger measures if desired, without undermining the federal floor.
Case against: Some advocates for full state autonomy might argue against any federal preemption, preferring states to have complete control over such regulations. However, the 'more strict' provision significantly mitigates this concern, making strong opposition less likely.
Estimated impact: This provision establishes a federal minimum standard for SIM box regulation, ensuring that no state can have weaker laws than the federal government. It allows states to enact stronger protections, potentially leading to a patchwork of varying, but always at least as stringent, regulations across the country.