U.S. Romance Scam Prevention Act – Nice Try – No Cigar!
U.S. Senate Bill S.841 – Romance Scam Prevention Act – 119th Congress (2025-2026)
Primary Category: Laws & Regulations
Intended Audience: General Public
Author:
• Tim McGuinness, Ph.D. – Anthropologist, Scientist, Director of the Society of Citizens Against Relationship Scams Inc.
About This Article
The Romance Scam Prevention Act (S. 841) aims to reduce romance scams by requiring online dating platforms to notify users when they have interacted with banned members suspected of fraudulent activity. While this approach enhances transparency, it is largely reactive and does not mandate proactive scam prevention measures such as identity verification or fraud detection.
The law does not penalize scammers directly, lacks cross-platform data sharing, and provides liability protections for dating services. Its effectiveness depends on user responsiveness and platform enforcement, making elimination of romance scams unlikely. While some reduction in scam losses may occur, systemic vulnerabilities remain unaddressed.
Analysis of the Romance Scam Prevention Act (S. 841) and Its Impact on Romance Scams
The “Romance Scam Prevention Act” (S. 841), introduced on March 4, 2025, by U.S. Senators Blackburn and Hickenlooper, aims to enhance safety on online dating platforms by mandating notifications to users about fraudulent actors. From the standpoint of reducing or eliminating romance and relationship scams, this law takes a reactive, transparency-focused approach.
However, this law focuses attention on a place that will not be effective. It also has a massive loophole, but it is a first step, as long as it is just the first step.
Below is an analysis of its provisions, limitations, and probable impact on these crimes.
Summary of What the Law Does
The Act requires online dating service providers to notify members within 24 hours (extendable to 3 days under specific conditions or delayed further at law enforcement’s request) if they have interacted with a “banned member”—someone whose account is terminated or suspended due to a “significant risk” of fraudulent behavior, such as attempting to extract money.
Notifications must be clear, delivered via email, text, or other consented means, and include the banned member’s username, interaction timestamp, a warning about potential fraud, advice against sending money or personal financial details, best practices to avoid scams, and customer service contact information.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will enforce compliance, treating violations as unfair or deceptive practices under the FTC Act, with civil penalties applicable. States can also pursue enforcement through their attorneys general, though federal actions take precedence. The law establishes a uniform national standard, preempting conflicting state regulations, and takes effect one year after enactment.
What the Law Does Not Do
The Act does not mandate proactive prevention measures, such as requiring dating platforms to verify user identities, screen for red flags (e.g., IP anomalies or behavioral patterns), or implement advanced anti-fraud technologies.
It lacks provisions to penalize or deter scammers directly, focusing instead on post-ban notifications rather than stopping scams before they occur.
There’s no requirement for platforms to report banned members to law enforcement or share data to track serial offenders across services.
The law also doesn’t address victim restitution or education beyond the notification’s brief guidance, nor does it regulate non-dating platforms (e.g., social media) where romance scams often originate.
Liability protections shield providers from lawsuits over notification details, potentially reducing accountability for inadequate fraud detection.
Probability of Reducing or Eliminating Romance Scams
The law’s effectiveness in reducing romance scams hinges on its notification mechanism, which could raise user awareness and interrupt ongoing scams. By alerting members to a banned scammer’s identity and advising caution, it may prevent some from sending money, particularly if they receive the notice mid-interaction.
The FTC’s enforcement power and state-level civil actions could pressure platforms to identify and ban fraudsters promptly, indirectly deterring scammers if bans become frequent and visible. However, its reactive nature limits its broader impact. Scammers can easily create new profiles, switch platforms, or target victims before bans are issued, as the law relies on platforms’ subjective “judgment” of risk without mandating robust detection systems.
Criminologist David Wall notes, “Cybercrime thrives on anonymity and adaptability,” suggesting scammers will exploit these gaps. The FTC’s 2023 data reported $1.3 billion in romance scam losses, with only 10% of victims reporting—indicating the scale of under-detection this law doesn’t address.
Elimination is improbable.
The Act treats symptoms (post-fraud bans) rather than root causes (anonymity, lax verification, cross-platform coordination). Without deterring scammers or empowering victims beyond notifications, it’s unlikely to dismantle the ecosystem of romance scams, which often involves international actors beyond U.S. jurisdiction. Reduction is more plausible—perhaps a 10-20% drop in losses on compliant platforms, based on analogous notification laws’ modest impacts (e.g., data breach alerts)—but this assumes swift enforcement and user responsiveness. Scammers’ agility and the law’s narrow scope temper optimism. As Susan Brenner observes, “Legal frameworks lag behind cybercrime’s evolution,” a critique this Act exemplifies.
Conclusion
The Romance Scam Prevention Act offers a very modest step toward reducing romance scams by enhancing transparency and user awareness, leveraging notifications and FTC enforcement. Yet, its reactive design, lack of preventive mandates, and failure to target scammers directly or address systemic vulnerabilities limit its reach. It may curb some losses but won’t eliminate the crime, with effectiveness contingent on platform diligence and user action—factors history suggests are unreliable against adaptive fraudsters.
U.S. Senate Bill S.841 – Romance Scam Prevention Act – 119th Congress (2025-2026)
119th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 841
To require online dating service providers to provide fraud ban notifications to online dating service members, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
March 4, 2025
Mrs. Blackburn (for herself and Mr. Hickenlooper) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
A BILL
To require online dating service providers to provide fraud ban notifications to online dating service members, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. Short title.
This Act may be cited as the “Romance Scam Prevention Act”.
SEC. 2. Online dating safety.
(a) Fraud ban notification.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—An online dating service provider shall provide to a member of the online dating service a fraud ban notification if the member has received a message through the online dating service from a banned member of the online dating service.
(2) REQUIRED CONTENTS.—A fraud ban notification under paragraph (1) shall include the following:
(A) The username or other profile identifier of the banned member, as well as the most recent time when the member to whom the notification is being provided sent or received a message through the online dating service to or from the banned member.
(B) A statement, as applicable, that the banned member identified in subparagraph (A) may have been using a false identity or attempting to defraud members.
(C) A statement that a member should not send cash or another form of currency or personal financial information to another member.
(D) Information regarding best practices to avoid online fraud or being defrauded by a member of an online dating service, which may be provided through a link to another web page or disclosure.
(E) Contact information to reach the customer service department of the online dating service provider.
(3) MANNER AND TIMING.—
(A) MANNER.—A fraud ban notification under paragraph (1) shall be—
(i) clear and conspicuous; and
(ii) provided by email, text message, or, if consented to by the member receiving the fraud ban notification, other appropriate means of communication.
(B) TIMING.—
(i) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in clauses (ii) and (iii), an online dating service provider shall provide a fraud ban notification under paragraph (1) not later than 24 hours after the fraud ban is initiated against the banned member.
(ii) DELAY BASED ON JUDGMENT OF PROVIDER.—If, in the judgment of the online dating service provider, the circumstances require a fraud ban notification under paragraph (1) to be provided after the 24-hour period described in clause (i), the online dating service provider shall, except as provided in clause (iii), provide the notification not later than 3 days after the day on which the fraud ban is initiated against the banned member.
(iii) DELAY UPON REQUEST OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL.—If, due to an ongoing investigation, a law enforcement official requests an online dating service provider to delay providing a fraud ban notification under paragraph (1) beyond the time when the notification is required to be provided under clause (i) or (ii), the online dating service provider—
(I) may not provide the notification before the end of the period of delay (including any extension of such period) requested by the law enforcement official; and
(II) shall provide the notification not later than 3 days after the last day of the period of delay (including any extension of such period) requested by the law enforcement official.
(4) LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.—An online dating service provider is not liable to a person in a civil action based on any of the following:
(A) The manner of communication used under paragraph (3)(A) to provide a fraud ban notification to a member under paragraph (1).
(B) The timing of a fraud ban notification under paragraph (3)(B) provided to a member under paragraph (1).
(C) The disclosure of information in a fraud ban notification provided under paragraph (1).
(b) Enforcement.—
(1) ENFORCEMENT BY THE COMMISSION.—
(A) UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES.—A violation of this section or a regulation promulgated under this section shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)).
(B) POWERS OF COMMISSION.—
(i) IN GENERAL.—The Commission shall enforce this section in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into and made a part of this section,
(ii) PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES.—Any person who violates this section shall be subject to the penalties and entitled to the privileges and immunities provided in the Federal Trade Commission Act.
(iii) AUTHORITY PRESERVED.—Nothing in this section may be construed to limit the authority of the Commission under any other provision of law.
(2) ENFORCEMENT BY STATES.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph (B), in any case in which the attorney general of a State has reason to believe that an interest of the residents of the State has been or is threatened or adversely affected by the engagement of any person in an act or practice that violates this section, the attorney general of the State may, as parens patriae, bring a civil action on behalf of the residents of the State in an appropriate district court of the United States to obtain appropriate relief.
(B) RIGHTS OF THE COMMISSION.—
(i) NOTICE TO THE COMMISSION.—
(I) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subclause (III), before initiating a civil action under subparagraph (A), the attorney general of a State shall notify the Commission in writing that the attorney general intends to bring such civil action.
(II) CONTENTS.—The notification required by subclause (I) shall include a copy of the complaint to be filed to initiate the civil action.
(III) EXCEPTION.—If it is not feasible for the attorney general of a State to provide the notification required by subclause (I) before initiating a civil action under subparagraph (A), the attorney general shall notify the Commission immediately upon instituting the civil action.
(ii) INTERVENTION BY THE COMMISSION.—Upon receiving the notice required by clause (i)(I), the Commission may intervene in the civil action and, upon intervening—
(I) be heard on all matters arising in the civil action; and
(II) file petitions for appeal of a decision in the civil action.
(C) LIMITATION ON STATE ACTION WHILE FEDERAL ACTION IS PENDING.—If the Commission has instituted a civil action for a violation of this section or a regulation promulgated under this section, no attorney general of a State may bring an action under subparagraph (A) during the pendency of that action against any defendant named in the complaint of the Commission for any violation of this section or a regulation promulgated under this section alleged in the complaint.
(D) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—For purposes of bringing a civil action under this subsection, nothing in this subsection may be construed to prevent the attorney general of a State from exercising the powers conferred on the attorney general by the laws of the State to conduct investigations, to administer oaths or affirmations, or to compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of documentary or other evidence.
(E) ACTIONS BY OTHER STATE OFFICIALS.—In addition to a civil action brought by an attorney general under subparagraph (A), any other consumer protection officer of a State who is authorized by the State to do so may bring a civil action under subparagraph (A), subject to the same requirements and limitations that apply under this paragraph to a civil action brought by an attorney general.
(c) One national standard.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—A State, or political subdivision thereof, may not maintain, enforce, prescribe, or continue in effect any law, rule, regulation, requirement, standard, or other provision having the force and effect of law of the State, or political subdivision of the State, that requires an online dating service provider to notify, prohibits an online dating service provider from notifying, or otherwise affects the manner in which an online dating service provider is required or permitted to notify, a member of the online dating service that the member has received a message from or sent a message to a member whose account or profile on the online dating service is the subject of a fraud ban through the online dating service.
(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—This subsection may not be construed to preempt any law of a State or political subdivision of a State relating to contracts or torts.
(d) Definitions.—In this section:
(1) BANNED MEMBER.—The term “banned member” means a member of an online dating service whose account or profile on the online dating service is the subject of a fraud ban.
(2) COMMISSION.—The term “Commission” means the Federal Trade Commission.
(3) FRAUD BAN.—The term “fraud ban” means the termination or suspension of the account or profile of a member of an online dating service because, in the judgment of the online dating service provider, there is a significant risk the member will attempt to obtain cash or another form of currency from another member through fraudulent means.
(4) MEMBER.—The term “member” means an individual who—
(A) submits to an online dating service provider the information required by the provider to establish an account or profile on the online dating service; and
(B) is allowed by the provider to establish such an account or profile.
(5) ONLINE DATING SERVICE.—The term “online dating service” means a service that—
(A) is provided through a website or a mobile application; and
(B) offers members access to dating or romantic relationships with other members by arranging or facilitating the social introduction of members.
(6) ONLINE DATING SERVICE PROVIDER.—The term “online dating service provider” means a person engaged in the business of offering an online dating service.
(7) STATE.—The term “State” means each State of the United States, the District of Columbia, each commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States, and each federally recognized Indian Tribe.
(e) Effective date.—This section shall take effect on the date that is 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Please Rate This Article
Please Leave Us Your Comment
Also, tell us of any topics we might have missed.
Thank you for your comment. You may receive an email to follow up. We never share your data with marketers.
Recent Reader Comments
on Parkinson’s Law and Doomscrolling – Increasing Susceptibility to Scams – 2025: “We surf the Internet often aimlessly, for hours without realizing how doomscrolling has a harmful effect on our body, our…” Mar 22, 15:27
on Parkinson’s Law and Doomscrolling – Increasing Susceptibility to Scams – 2025: “A very interesting read. I enjoyed it and love learning something new. Thanks for adding the tools to help break…” Mar 22, 10:34
on Understanding Jordan B. Peterson’s Views on Evil: Scam Victims Have a Moral Obligation to Understand Evil – 2025: “Muy interesante, el mal es de alguna manera son las elecciones individuales que hacemos al no asumir la responsabilidad de…” Mar 21, 00:06
on Secrets Can Be Deadly For Scam Victims – Scam Victim Recovery Psychology: “I found this article very encouraging.” Mar 18, 18:23
on Magical Thinking – How Biased & Delusional Thinking Enslaves Scam Victims: “I really fell in love with the “too good to be true” fantasy. I was in such a vulnerable state…” Mar 18, 00:53
on Monsters of the Id – How Scam Victims’ Own Emotions Can Sabotage Their Recovery – 2025: “This is a valuable article. It is a real life battle and I trust this will encourage victims to realise…” Mar 17, 13:16
on Secrets Can Be Deadly For Scam Victims – Scam Victim Recovery Psychology: “When I “woke up” and realized what had happened that I had experienced a scam (fraud)/crime I kept it to…” Mar 16, 20:33
Important Information for New Scam Victims
- Please visit www.ScamVictimsSupport.org – a SCARS Website for New Scam Victims & Sextortion Victims
- SCARS Institute now offers a free recovery program at www.SCARSeducation.org
- Please visit www.ScamPsychology.org – to more fully understand the psychological concepts involved in scams and scam victim recovery
If you are looking for local trauma counselors please visit counseling.AgainstScams.org or join SCARS for our counseling/therapy benefit: membership.AgainstScams.org
If you need to speak with someone now, you can dial 988 or find phone numbers for crisis hotlines all around the world here: www.opencounseling.com/suicide-hotlines
A Question of Trust
At the SCARS Institute, we invite you to do your own research on the topics we speak about and publish, Our team investigates the subject being discussed, especially when it comes to understanding the scam victims-survivors experience. You can do Google searches but in many cases, you will have to wade through scientific papers and studies. However, remember that biases and perspectives matter and influence the outcome. Regardless, we encourage you to explore these topics as thoroughly as you can for your own awareness.
Statement About Victim Blaming
Some of our articles discuss various aspects of victims. This is both about better understanding victims (the science of victimology) and their behaviors and psychology. This helps us to educate victims/survivors about why these crimes happened and to not blame themselves, better develop recovery programs, and to help victims avoid scams in the future. At times this may sound like blaming the victim, but it does not blame scam victims, we are simply explaining the hows and whys of the experience victims have.
These articles, about the Psychology of Scams or Victim Psychology – meaning that all humans have psychological or cognitive characteristics in common that can either be exploited or work against us – help us all to understand the unique challenges victims face before, during, and after scams, fraud, or cybercrimes. These sometimes talk about some of the vulnerabilities the scammers exploit. Victims rarely have control of them or are even aware of them, until something like a scam happens and then they can learn how their mind works and how to overcome these mechanisms.
Articles like these help victims and others understand these processes and how to help prevent them from being exploited again or to help them recover more easily by understanding their post-scam behaviors. Learn more about the Psychology of Scams at www.ScamPsychology.org
SCARS Resources:
- Getting Started: ScamVictimsSupport.org
- FREE enrollment in the SCARS Institute training programs for scam victims SCARSeducation.org
- For New Victims of Relationship Scams newvictim.AgainstScams.org
- Subscribe to SCARS Newsletter newsletter.againstscams.org
- Sign up for SCARS professional support & recovery groups, visit support.AgainstScams.org
- Find competent trauma counselors or therapists, visit counseling.AgainstScams.org
- Become a SCARS Member and get free counseling benefits, visit membership.AgainstScams.org
- Report each and every crime, learn how to at reporting.AgainstScams.org
- Learn more about Scams & Scammers at RomanceScamsNOW.com and ScamsNOW.com
- Learn more about the Psychology of Scams and Scam Victims: ScamPsychology.org
- Self-Help Books for Scam Victims are at shop.AgainstScams.org
- Worldwide Crisis Hotlines: International Suicide Hotlines – OpenCounseling : OpenCounseling
- Campaign To End Scam Victim Blaming – 2024 (scamsnow.com)
Psychology Disclaimer:
All articles about psychology and the human brain on this website are for information & education only
The information provided in this and other SCARS articles are intended for educational and self-help purposes only and should not be construed as a substitute for professional therapy or counseling.
Note about Mindfulness: Mindfulness practices have the potential to create psychological distress for some individuals. Please consult a mental health professional or experienced meditation instructor for guidance should you encounter difficulties.
While any self-help techniques outlined herein may be beneficial for scam victims seeking to recover from their experience and move towards recovery, it is important to consult with a qualified mental health professional before initiating any course of action. Each individual’s experience and needs are unique, and what works for one person may not be suitable for another.
Additionally, any approach may not be appropriate for individuals with certain pre-existing mental health conditions or trauma histories. It is advisable to seek guidance from a licensed therapist or counselor who can provide personalized support, guidance, and treatment tailored to your specific needs.
If you are experiencing significant distress or emotional difficulties related to a scam or other traumatic event, please consult your doctor or mental health provider for appropriate care and support.
Also read our SCARS Institute Statement about Professional Care for Scam Victims – click here
If you are in crisis, feeling desperate, or in despair please call 988 or your local crisis hotline.
-/ 30 /-
What do you think about this?
Please share your thoughts in a comment below!
Leave a Reply