Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 145.
Requires online dating services to notify members if they exchanged messages with an account that the provider has suspended or terminated for suspected attempts to obtain money fraudulently. Notifications must identify the banned profile, state the potential fraud risk, warn against sending money, provide fraud-avoidance resources, and give customer-service contact information.
Progressives emphasize consumer protection and victim prevention
Narrow consumer-protection bill with low partisan salience but some industry/regulatory pushback likely.
Requires online dating services to notify members if they exchanged messages with an account that the provider has suspended or terminated for suspected attempts to obtain money fraudulently.
Notifications must identify the banned profile, state the potential fraud risk, warn against sending money, provide fraud-avoidance resources, and give customer-service contact information.
Notices must be clear, delivered (usually within 24 hours, with limited delays permitted), and providers receive a safe-harbor for compliance; the FTC enforces violations and states are largely preempted from imposing different notice rules.
Modest-to-reasonable chance: narrow, non-controversial consumer-protection goals help passage, while industry compliance costs and preemption raise opposition.
How solid the drafting looks.
Progressives emphasize consumer protection and victim prevention
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize consumer protection and victim prevention
Likely broadly supportive as a targeted consumer-protection measure addressing romance/financial scams that disproportionately harm vulnerable people.
Would favor FTC enforcement and clear notice requirements, while wanting safeguards for accuracy and privacy.
May seek stronger due-process or appeal rights for banned accounts and caution against preemption of state consumer protections that are stronger.
Generally favorable but pragmatic: supports preventing fraud while wanting clear implementation rules and manageable costs for providers.
Sees FTC enforcement as appropriate but would want precision in definitions, timelines, and allowances for law enforcement investigations.
Concerned about burdens on small platforms and potential legal ambiguity.
Likely skeptical, viewing the bill as federal overreach imposing regulatory duties and messaging requirements on private businesses.
Concerned about added compliance costs, expanded FTC authority, and potential chilling effects on platform moderation.
May support fraud prevention but prefer market-based, state-led, or law-enforcement solutions instead.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Modest-to-reasonable chance: narrow, non-controversial consumer-protection goals help passage, while industry compliance costs and preemption raise opposition.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize consumer protection and victim prevention
Modest-to-reasonable chance: narrow, non-controversial consumer-protection goals help passage, while industry compliance costs and preempti…
Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for Romance Scam Prevention Act.
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.