Technical corrections only. v4 updates the bill's status to reflect its receipt and placement on the calendar in the Senate, including a change in the session from 1st to 2nd Congress. No substantive policy changes were made between v3 and v4.
Romance Scam Prevention Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Valadao, David G. [R-CA-22]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 14, 2026
Bottom line
The Romance Scam Prevention Act aims to protect online dating users from financial fraud by requiring platforms to issue timely notifications when a user has interacted with a banned scammer, while also standardizing regulation across states.
What it actually does
This bill mandates that online dating service providers notify members if they have exchanged messages with another member who has subsequently been banned for suspected fraud. The notification must include the banned member's identifier, a statement about potential fraud, advice against sending money, best practices for avoiding scams, and customer service contact information. It also establishes enforcement mechanisms for the Federal Trade Commission and State Attorneys General, and creates a national standard by preempting state laws on this specific type of notification.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is a crucial step in combating the growing problem of romance scams, which cost victims billions annually. They contend that mandating clear and timely notifications will empower users to recognize and avoid fraudulent schemes, increasing transparency and accountability for online dating platforms. Furthermore, establishing a national standard ensures consistent protection for users regardless of their location and provides a clear regulatory framework for providers.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that while the intent is good, the bill could impose significant compliance burdens on online dating service providers, particularly smaller ones, potentially leading to increased operational costs that could be passed on to users. Concerns could also be raised about the effectiveness of such notifications, as sophisticated scammers may adapt, and the preemption clause could limit states' ability to innovate with more tailored consumer protection measures in the future.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(a)(1)
Mandatory Fraud Ban Notification
This provision requires online dating service providers to send a 'fraud ban notification' to any member who has received a message from another member who was subsequently banned from the service due to suspected fraud. This ensures that users are alerted if they have unknowingly interacted with a potential scammer.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision directly addresses a critical vulnerability in online dating by proactively informing potential victims, thereby preventing financial and emotional harm.
Critics contend
Opponents may contend that implementing such a system accurately and efficiently across millions of users and interactions presents a significant technical and logistical challenge for providers, potentially leading to false positives or delayed notifications.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the need for consumer protection against the operational complexities and potential costs for online dating service providers in detecting and notifying users about fraudulent accounts.
Section 2(a)(2)
Required Contents of Notification
This section specifies the exact information that must be included in a fraud ban notification. This includes the banned member's identifier, the last interaction time, a statement about potential fraud, a warning against sending money or financial information, best practices for avoiding online fraud, and customer service contact information. This ensures notifications are comprehensive and actionable.
Section 2(a)(3)
Manner and Timing of Notification
This provision dictates how and when fraud ban notifications must be delivered. Notifications must be clear, conspicuous, and sent via email, text message, or other consented means. Generally, they must be sent within 24 hours of a fraud ban, with provisions for a 3-day delay if circumstances require, or a further delay if requested by law enforcement for an ongoing investigation. This aims for timely and effective communication.
Section 2(b)
Enforcement by FTC and States
This section grants enforcement authority for the Act. Violations are treated as unfair or deceptive acts under the Federal Trade Commission Act, allowing the FTC to enforce the provisions with its full powers. Additionally, State Attorneys General (and other authorized state consumer protection officers) are empowered to bring civil actions on behalf of their residents, provided they notify the FTC and respect federal action pendency. This creates a dual enforcement structure.
Section 2(c)
One National Standard (Preemption)
This section establishes a national standard by preempting state and local laws that would require, prohibit, or otherwise affect the manner in which online dating service providers issue fraud ban notifications. This means states cannot create their own, different rules for these specific notifications, ensuring uniformity across the country. However, it explicitly states that it does not preempt state contract or tort laws.
This provision establishes a safe harbor, stating that an online dating service provider is not liable to a member, banned member, or former member for claims based on actions taken to comply with the fraud ban notification requirements.
Section 2(a)(4)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to provide legal protection for entities complying with new mandates, mitigating potential lawsuits arising from the act of notification itself.
Case for: Supporters argue that this safe harbor is essential to encourage compliance, as providers would otherwise face potential legal risks (e.g., defamation claims from banned members, or claims from notified members) for simply following the law. It reduces the chilling effect on proactive fraud prevention.
Case against: Critics might argue that while some protection is warranted, an overly broad safe harbor could potentially shield providers from accountability if their fraud detection or notification processes are negligent, as long as they technically 'comply' with the requirements. However, the language is specific to claims 'based on an online dating service provider's action to comply'.
Estimated impact: Significantly reduces legal exposure for online dating service providers related to the act of issuing fraud ban notifications.
This clause allows an online dating service provider to delay providing a fraud ban notification beyond the standard 24-hour or 3-day period if a law enforcement official requests such a delay due to an ongoing investigation. The notification must then be provided within 3 days after the requested delay period ends.
Section 2(a)(3)(B)(iii)
Why it matters:This is a practical carve-out designed to protect the integrity of criminal investigations, which often rely on not alerting suspects prematurely. It's a common legislative practice to include such provisions for law enforcement cooperation.
Case for: Proponents argue that this provision is vital for law enforcement to effectively investigate and prosecute romance scams. Premature notifications could tip off criminals, allowing them to destroy evidence or evade capture, thus undermining broader efforts to combat fraud.
Case against: Critics might express concern that delaying notifications, even for law enforcement, could leave potential victims vulnerable for longer periods, increasing their risk of financial loss. There's a tension between protecting an ongoing investigation and immediately protecting individual users.
Estimated impact: Provides law enforcement with a critical tool to conduct investigations without interference from mandatory notifications, potentially leading to more successful prosecutions of scammers.