Therapeutic Fraud Prevention Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Murray, Patty [D-WA]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 7, 2025
Bottom line
The bill establishes a federal ban on compensated conversion therapy, treating it as a fraudulent consumer practice, and provides multiple avenues for federal and state enforcement.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits commercial sexual orientation and gender identity conversion therapy, classifying such practices as unfair or deceptive acts under the Federal Trade Commission Act. It grants enforcement authority to the Federal Trade Commission, the Attorney General, and State attorneys general to pursue civil actions against providers of these services. The bill explicitly excludes gender transition assistance and identity-affirming support from its definition of conversion therapy.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that conversion therapy is scientifically discredited, ineffective, and profoundly harmful, leading to severe negative mental and physical health outcomes, including depression, self-harm, and suicide. They contend that being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or gender nonconforming is not a disorder and that the government has a responsibility to protect vulnerable individuals from deceptive practices that exploit them for profit.
Opponents contend
Opponents typically argue that such bans infringe on religious freedom, parental rights, and the rights of individuals to seek counseling that aligns with their personal or religious beliefs. They may contend that the bill overreaches federal authority into areas traditionally regulated by states or professional licensing boards, and that it restricts the ability of therapists to provide certain types of care.
The bill is concise and clearly written, making it accessible for a reader to understand its core provisions within a short timeframe.
Section 1
Short Title
This section establishes the official short title of the Act as the 'Therapeutic Fraud Prevention Act of 2025,' providing a concise name for legislative and public reference.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a clear and descriptive short title helps in easily identifying the bill's purpose and facilitates public discourse and legislative tracking.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against short titles, as they are standard legislative practice.
Section 2
Congressional Findings on Conversion Therapy
This section outlines Congress's findings, stating that being LGBTQ+ is not a disorder, that there's no scientific evidence supporting conversion therapy's effectiveness, and that it poses substantial dangers to mental and physical health, contributing to depression, self-harm, and suicide. It concludes that preventing fraud by those profiting from this harmful therapy is in the Nation's interest.
Section 3
Definitions of Key Terms
This section defines 'conversion therapy' as any compensated practice seeking to change sexual orientation or gender identity, explicitly excluding gender transition assistance or identity-affirming support. It also defines 'gender identity,' 'person,' and 'sexual orientation' to clarify the scope of the Act.
Section 4
Prohibition of Commercial Conversion Therapy and Enforcement Mechanisms
This section makes it unlawful to provide commercial conversion therapy, advertise it with claims of changing identity or being harmless, or knowingly assist in its provision for compensation. It designates violations as unfair or deceptive acts under the Federal Trade Commission Act, granting enforcement powers to the FTC, the Attorney General, and State attorneys general.
The definition of 'conversion therapy' includes receiving monetary compensation for a product or service integral to the provision of such therapy, 'unless such product or service is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.'
Section 3(1)(A)(ii)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining the precise scope and limitations within complex definitions, particularly when constitutional concerns are at play.
Case for: Supporters would argue this carve-out is necessary to avoid constitutional challenges related to free speech and religious expression, ensuring the bill targets commercial practices rather than protected forms of communication or religious guidance.
Case against: Critics might argue that this exception could create a loophole, potentially allowing some forms of harmful 'conversion therapy' to continue under the guise of protected speech or religious services, particularly if the product or service is not directly 'therapy' but facilitates it.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant, as it could influence the scope of enforcement and the types of activities that remain permissible, depending on judicial interpretation of First Amendment protections in this context.
If the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) institutes a civil or administrative action with respect to a violation, a State attorney general may not bring a civil action under paragraph (1) against any defendant named in the complaint of the Commission for the same violation during the pendency of the FTC's action.
Section 4(d)(4)
Why it matters:This is a standard legislative mechanism to prevent duplicative enforcement actions and ensure federal primacy when a federal agency has already acted on a matter.
Case for: Proponents argue this prevents redundant litigation, conserves resources, and ensures a consistent federal approach to enforcement, avoiding a patchwork of state-level actions against the same entity for the same offense.
Case against: Critics might contend that this limits state autonomy and could delay justice for state residents if the FTC's action is slow or less comprehensive than a state might pursue.
Estimated impact: Primarily procedural, affecting the timing and jurisdiction of enforcement actions rather than the substantive prohibition. It ensures federal actions take precedence.