A substantive modification. v2 renames Section 2 from "Online Dating Safety" to "Romance Scam Prevention" and significantly alters the liability protection for online dating service providers. The new "Safe harbor applicability" provision in Section 2(a)(4) broadens the scope of protection for providers complying with fraud ban notification requirements, offering more comprehensive legal security.
Romance Scam Prevention Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 2, 2025
Bottom line
The Romance Scam Prevention Act aims to enhance user safety on online dating platforms by requiring timely fraud ban notifications, while also standardizing compliance requirements for service providers nationwide.
What it actually does
This bill mandates that online dating service providers notify users if they have exchanged messages with another user who has subsequently been banned for suspected fraudulent activity. The notification must include specific details like the banned user's identifier, a warning about potential fraud, general scam prevention tips, and customer service contact information. It also establishes a national standard for these notifications, preempting conflicting state laws, and provides a safe harbor for providers who comply.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is a crucial step in combating the growing problem of romance scams, which defraud vulnerable individuals of significant sums. They contend that timely notifications will empower users to recognize and avoid fraudulent interactions, increasing transparency and accountability for online dating platforms. The national standard is seen as beneficial for providers, ensuring consistent regulatory requirements across jurisdictions.
Opponents contend
Critics might express concerns that mandating notifications could lead to an overwhelming number of alerts for users, potentially causing 'notification fatigue' and reducing their effectiveness. Some may also argue that the preemption clause limits the ability of states to enact more robust or tailored consumer protections, potentially hindering innovation in fraud prevention at the local level. There could also be concerns about the broadness of the safe harbor provision.
The bill is concise and clearly written, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its provisions and implications within a short timeframe.
Section 2(a)(1)-(3)
Mandatory Fraud Ban Notifications
This provision requires online dating service providers to send a 'fraud ban notification' to any user who has communicated with another user whose account has been terminated or suspended due to suspected fraudulent activity (a 'fraud ban'). The notification must be clear and conspicuous, delivered via email, text, or other consented means, and generally sent within 24 hours of the fraud ban, with provisions for delays under specific circumstances, including law enforcement requests.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that these notifications are essential for user safety, directly alerting individuals who may be targeted by romance scammers. This proactive approach helps prevent financial loss and emotional distress by providing critical information at a timely moment.
Critics contend
Some might argue that a strict 24-hour notification window could be challenging for providers to meet consistently, especially for smaller platforms, potentially leading to compliance issues. Others might suggest that a flood of notifications could desensitize users, making them less attentive to genuine threats.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the immediate need to protect users from ongoing scams with the operational complexities and potential for user fatigue that mandatory, time-sensitive notifications entail for service providers.
Section 2(a)(4)
Safe Harbor for Compliance
This section grants online dating service providers a 'safe harbor,' meaning they are not liable in civil actions brought by a member, banned member, or former member for claims based on their actions to comply with the fraud ban notification requirements. This includes the manner or timing of the notification, or the disclosure of information within it.
Section 2(c)
One National Standard (Preemption)
This section establishes a national standard for fraud ban notifications, explicitly preempting any state or local laws, rules, or regulations that would require, prohibit, or otherwise affect how online dating service providers notify members about interactions with banned fraudulent accounts. However, it clarifies that this preemption does not extend to state or local laws related to contracts or torts.
Allows online dating service providers to delay sending fraud ban notifications beyond the standard 24-hour or 3-day period if a law enforcement official requests a delay due to an ongoing investigation. The notification must then be sent within 3 days after the requested delay period ends.
Section 2(a)(3)(B)(iii)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for detailing specific exceptions and operational nuances within a broader rule. It's a practical consideration for law enforcement.
Case for: Law enforcement agencies often require delays in notifications to avoid tipping off suspects and compromising ongoing investigations into fraudulent activities. This provision ensures that the bill supports, rather than hinders, criminal investigations.
Case against: Some might argue that delaying notifications, even at the request of law enforcement, could leave potential victims exposed to fraud for a longer period. There could be concerns about the duration of such delays and oversight of these requests.
Estimated impact: This provision could affect an unknown number of users who might experience delayed notifications, potentially prolonging their exposure to a scammer, but in service of a broader law enforcement objective.
Defines 'fraud ban' as the termination or suspension of an account because, 'in the judgment of the online dating service provider,' there is a significant risk the member will attempt to obtain currency through fraudulent means.
Section 2(d)(3)
Why it matters:Definitions are typically placed at the end of a bill for clarity and conciseness, but this particular definition grants significant discretion to the service provider.
Case for: Proponents would argue that granting discretion to service providers is necessary because they are best positioned to identify and assess fraudulent activity on their platforms, given their access to data and behavioral patterns. This flexibility allows them to adapt to evolving scam tactics.
Case against: Critics might contend that relying solely on the 'judgment of the online dating service provider' could lead to inconsistent application of fraud bans, potential biases, or insufficient action if providers are not aggressive enough in their assessments. It also lacks an external standard for what constitutes 'significant risk'.
Estimated impact: This definition directly shapes which accounts trigger a fraud ban notification, thus determining the scope and frequency of notifications and the level of protection afforded to users. Its impact is on the discretion given to private companies.