[House Report 118-623]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


118th Congress   }                                      {      Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session      }                                      {      118-623

======================================================================



 
                    ONLINE DATING SAFETY ACT OF 2023

                                _______
                                

 July 30, 2023.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mrs. Rodgers of Washington, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 6125]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 6125) to require online dating service providers 
to provide fraud ban notifications to online dating service 
members, and for other purposes, having considered the same, 
reports favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that 
the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     4
Background and Need for Legislation..............................     4
Committee Action.................................................     5
Committee Votes..................................................     5
Oversight Findings and Recommendations...........................     7
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures     7
Congressional Budget Office Estimate.............................     7
Federal Mandates Statement.......................................    12
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............    12
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................    12
Related Committee and Subcommittee Hearings......................    12
Committee Cost Estimate..........................................    12
Earmark, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits.......    12
Advisory Committee Statement.....................................    12
Applicability to Legislative Branch..............................    13
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation...................    13
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    13

    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Online Dating Safety Act of 2023''.

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 may have been using a false identity or 
                attempting to defraud members.
                  (C) A statement that a member should not send money 
                or personal financial information to another member.
                  (D) An online link to information regarding ways to 
                avoid online fraud or being defrauded by a member of an 
                online dating service.
                  (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 
                        other appropriate means of communication 
                        consented to by the member.
                  (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.
  (b) Enforcement by Federal Trade Commission.--
          (1) Unfair or deceptive acts or practices.--A violation of 
        this section shall be treated as a violation of a regulation 
        under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act 
        (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)) regarding unfair or deceptive acts or 
        practices.
          (2) Powers of commission.--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, and 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.
          (3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this section may be 
        construed to limit the authority of the Commission under any 
        other provision of law.
  (c) Actions by States.--
          (1) In general.--In any case in which the attorney general of 
        a State, or an official or agency of a State, has reason to 
        believe that an interest of the residents of such State has 
        been or is threatened or adversely affected by an act or 
        practice in violation of this section, the State, as parens 
        patriae, may 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.
          (2) Notice.--Before filing an action under this subsection, 
        the attorney general, official, or agency of the State involved 
        shall provide to the Commission a written notice of such action 
        and a copy of the complaint for such action. If the attorney 
        general, official, or agency determines that it is not feasible 
        to provide the notice described in this paragraph before the 
        filing of the action, the attorney general, official, or agency 
        shall provide written notice of the action and a copy of the 
        complaint to the Commission immediately upon the filing of the 
        action.
          (3) Authority of federal trade commission.--
                  (A) In general.--On receiving notice under paragraph 
                (2) of an action under this subsection, the Commission 
                shall have the right--
                          (i) to intervene in the action;
                          (ii) upon so intervening, to be heard on all 
                        matters arising therein; and
                          (iii) to file petitions for appeal.
                  (B) Limitation on state action while federal action 
                is pending.--If the Commission or the Attorney General 
                of the United States has instituted a civil action for 
                violation of this section (referred to in this 
                subparagraph as the ``Federal action''), no State 
                attorney general, official, or agency may bring an 
                action under this subsection during the pendency of the 
                Federal action against any defendant named in the 
                complaint in the Federal action for any violation of 
                this section alleged in such complaint.
          (4) Rule of construction.--For purposes of bringing a civil 
        action under this subsection, nothing in this section may be 
        construed to prevent an attorney general, official, or agency 
        of a State from exercising the powers conferred on the attorney 
        general, official, or agency by the laws of such State to 
        conduct investigations, administer oaths and affirmations, or 
        compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of 
        documentary and other evidence.
  (d) One National Standard.--
          (1) In general.--A State, or political subdivision of a 
        State, 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 banned member 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.
  (e) 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 money 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.
  (f) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the date that 
is 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

                          PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

    H.R. 6125 requires online dating service providers to 
provide fraud ban notifications to online dating service 
members.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    Since their inception in 1995, online dating platforms have 
transformed the way that people find their partners, and they 
continue to gain popularity. According to a recent study, 30 
percent of U.S. adults say that they have used a dating site or 
app.\1\ While online dating platforms have arguably made 
finding romantic partners easier than traditional dating, their 
digital format has increased the dangers of dating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Emily A, Vogels and Colleen McClain, Key findings about online 
dating in the U.S., Pew Research Center (February 2, 2023), https://
www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findings-about-online-
dating-in-the-u-s/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Federal Trade Commission reported that romance scams 
resulted in victims losing $1.3 billion in 2022.\2\ Victims of 
these scams may lose their investments, retirements, and life 
savings. In one example, Nelly Idowu, a 39-year-old woman from 
Provo, Utah, preyed on single women over the age of 65 and 
scammed her victims out of over $6 million from 2017 to 
2019.\3\ In another example, Joe Bleibtrey's scammer convinced 
him to invest his savings and retirement accounts into a fake 
scheme in which he appeared to be making a fortune by investing 
in cryptocurrencies.\4\ He died by suicide after realizing that 
he had been scammed and his savings were stolen.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Emma Fletcher, Romance scammers' favorite lies exposed, Federal 
Trade Commission (February 9, 2023), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/
data-visualizations/data-spotlight/2023/02/romance-scammers-favorite-
lies-exposed.
    \3\Derrick Jones, Scammer convicted of $6 million romance scam, KSL 
News Radio (October 24, 2023), https://kslnewsradio.com/2052997/
scammer-convicted-of-6-million-romance-scam/.
    \4\Kevin Collier, Online romance scams are netting millions of 
dollars--and pushing some to self-harm, NBC News (July 2, 2023), 
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/how-online-romance-scams-
netting-millions-self-harm-rcna85252.
    \5\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Most online dating service providers have implemented 
multiple strategies, including selfie verification, to manage 
romance scams on their platforms.\6\ When some online dating 
service providers suspect that an account is fraudulent, the 
online dating services removes the fraudulent user's profile or 
account.\7\ Additionally, some online dating services have 
created campaigns to educate users on online dating scams and 
toxic behavior.\8\ However, not all users are aware of the risk 
of scammers using dating websites, and they often do not know 
when someone they met through the site has been kicked off the 
site for fraud.\9\ Moreover, there are reports that scammers 
often invite their victims and potential victims to communicate 
outside the dating website, so they victims may not know that 
someone they are communicating with off the site has had their 
account disabled on the site.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\Alexandra Skores, Here's how dating app giant Match Group is 
fighting back against romance scammers, The Dallas Morning News 
(January 11, 2023), https://www.dallasnews.com/business/local-
companies/2023/01/11/heres-how-dating-app-giant-match-group-is-
fighting-back-against-romance-scammers/.
    \7\PR Newswire, Match Group Tells Spammers To Bot Off As It 
Continues Investing In Automated Tools To Remove Fraudsters (June 9, 
2023), https://finance.yahoo.com/news/match-group-tells-spammers-bot-
155200566.html.
    \8\Alex Caperton, Tinder partners with celebrity to fight romance 
scams, ABC 6 (October 2, 2023), https://abc6onyourside.com/news/local/
tinder-partners-with-celebrity-to-fight-romance-scams-mean-girls-
jonathan-bennett-world-romace-scam-prevention-day-match-group.
    \9\Aura, The Unexpected Dangers of Online Dating [11 Scams To Know] 
(Nov. 29, 2023) (https://www.aura.com/learn/dangers-of-online-dating).
    \10\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 6125 seeks to fill this communication gap by requiring 
online dating platforms to send a fraud ban notification to 
anyone who has communicated with someone whose account or 
profile has been suspended because, in the judgment of the 
online dating service provider, there is a significant risk 
that the member will attempt to obtain money from another 
member through fraudulent means. With these notifications, 
Americans will be less likely to fall victim to romance 
scammers.

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    On September 27, 2023, the Subcommittee on Innovation, 
Data, and Commerce held a hearing on H.R. 6125. The title of 
the hearing was ``Proposals to Enhance Product Safety and 
Transparency for Americans.'' The Subcommittee received 
testimony from:
           Kathleen Callahan, Owner, Xpertech Auto 
        Repair;
           Scott Benavidez, Chairman, Automotive 
        Service Association;
           Steven Michael Gentine, Counsel, Arnold & 
        Porter, LLP;
           John Breyault, Vice President of Public 
        Policy, Telecommunications and Fraud, National 
        Consumers League; and,
           David Touhey, Principal, Connett Consulting, 
        appearing on behalf of International Association of 
        Venue Managers.
    On November 2, 2023, the Subcommittee on Innovation, Data, 
and Commerce met in open markup session and forwarded H.R. 
6125, without amendment, to the full Committee by a recorded 
vote of 11 yeas and 8 nays.
    On December 6, 2023, the full Committee on Energy and 
Commerce met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 6125, as 
amended, favorably reported to the House by a record vote of 45 
yeas and 0 nays.

                            COMMITTEE VOTES

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII requires the Committee to list the 
record votes on the motion to report legislation and amendments 
thereto. The following reflects the record votes taken during 
the Committee consideration:

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                 OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    Pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of 
rule XIII, the Committee held a hearing and made findings that 
are reflected in this report.

   NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX EXPENDITURES

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII, the Committee 
finds that H.R. 6125 would result in no new or increased budget 
authority, entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or 
revenues.

                  CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII, the following is 
the cost estimate provided by the Congressional Budget Office 
pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974:

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Summary of legislation: On December 6, 2023, the House 
Committee on Energy and Commerce ordered reported 41 bills. 
This document provides estimates for 7 of those bills.
    The bills would require the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 
to enforce new prohibitions and requirements or would direct 
the Department of Commerce to study various issues and report 
to the Congress.
    Estimated Federal cost: The bills' costs fall within budget 
function 370 (commerce and housing credit).
    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the 
bills will be enacted near the middle of fiscal year 2024. The 
estimated costs do not include any interaction effects among 
the bills. If all seven bills were combined and enacted as a 
single piece of legislation, the estimated costs would be 
different from the sum of the separate estimates, although CBO 
expects that any difference would be small.
    CBO estimates that implementing each of the seven bills 
would cost between $1 million and $4 million over the 2024-2029 
period; that spending would be subject to the availability of 
appropriated funds.
    Four bills--H.R. 2964, H.R. 3950, H.R. 6125, and H.R. 
6543--would each increase revenues by an insignificant amount. 
Entities that fail to meet each of those bills' new 
requirements could face civil penalties, which are recorded in 
the federal budget as revenues. To some extent, collection of 
any civil fines would depend on the amount of appropriations 
provided by future appropriation acts to pay for enforcement. 
In addition, whether the FTC would pursue civil penalties or 
some other remedy for violations is unclear. In any event, CBO 
expects that companies would generally comply with the new 
requirements and that any additional revenues collected over 
the 2024-2034 period would be insignificant for each bill.
    H.R. 2964, WIPPES Act: The bill would require manufacturers 
and suppliers of disposable wipes to clearly mark their 
products with a ``do not flush'' label and symbol. The FTC 
would enforce those requirements.
    Based on the cost of similar provisions, CBO estimates that 
implementing H.R. 2964 would cost the FTC $4 million to issue 
guidance and to monitor and enforce violations. In addition, 
CBO estimates that enacting the bill could increase civil 
penalty collections, which are recorded in the federal budget 
as revenues, by an insignificant amount.
    H.R. 3950, TICKET Act: The bill would require companies 
that issue tickets or that sell tickets on the secondary market 
to clearly display the total price of any ticket, including 
itemizing any fees not included in the base ticket price. That 
requirement would apply to live events at venues with an 
attendance capacity of 200 people or more. The FTC would 
enforce those requirements.
    Based on the cost of similar provisions, CBO estimates that 
implementing H.R. 3950 would cost the FTC $4 million to issue 
guidance and to monitor and enforce violations. In addition, 
CBO estimates that enacting the bill could increase civil 
penalty collections, which are recorded in the federal budget 
as revenues, by an insignificant amount.
    H.R. 5146, Advancing Gig Economy Act: The bill would 
require the Department of Commerce to study and report to the 
Congress within two years of enactment on how the gig economy 
affects U.S. businesses.
    Based on the cost of similar studies, CBO estimates that 
implementing H.R. 5146 would cost $2 million over two years for 
the work of four employees, at an annual cost of about $220,000 
each, along with purchases of data and survey contracts.
    H.R. 5390, Critical Infrastructure Manufacturing 
Feasibility Act: The bill would require the Department of 
Commerce to study and report to the Congress within one year of 
enactment on the feasibility of manufacturing in the United 
States products in critical infrastructure sectors that now are 
imported because of supply chain constraints.
    Based on the cost of similar studies, CBO estimates that 
implementing H.R. 5390 would cost $1 million for one year for 
the work of four employees, at a cost of about $220,000 each, 
along with purchases of data and survey contracts.
    H.R. 5398, Advancing Tech Startups Act: The bill would 
require the Department of Commerce to study and report to the 
Congress within two years of enactment on how technology 
startup companies affect the U.S. economy.
    Based on the cost of similar studies, CBO estimates that 
implementing H.R. 5398 would cost $2 million over two years for 
the work of four employees, at an annual cost of about $220,000 
each, along with purchases of data and survey contracts.
    H.R. 6125, Online Dating Safety Act of 2023: The bill would 
require providers of online dating services to notify a user if 
they are contacted by a member whose account was suspended or 
terminated because of fraudulent activity. The FTC would 
enforce those requirements.
    Based on the cost of similar provisions, CBO estimates that 
implementing H.R. 6125 would cost the FTC $4 million to issue 
guidance and to monitor and enforce violations. In addition, 
CBO estimates that enacting the bill could increase civil 
penalty collections, which are recorded in the federal budget 
as revenues, by an insignificant amount.
    H.R. 6543, No Hidden FEES Act of 2023: The bill would 
require providers of short-term lodging and websites that 
advertise or offer such lodging to display each mandatory fee 
required to complete a booking. The FTC would enforce those 
requirements.
    Based on the cost of similar provisions, CBO estimates that 
implementing H.R. 6543 would cost the FTC $4 million to issue 
guidance and to monitor and enforce violations. In addition, 
CBO estimates that enacting the bill could increase civil 
penalty collections, which are recorded in the federal budget 
as revenues, by an insignificant amount.
    Pay-As-You-Go considerations: CBO estimates that enacting 
H.R. 2964, H.R. 3950, H.R. 6125, and H.R. 6543 would each 
increase revenues by less than $500,000 over the 2024-2034 
period; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply to those 
bills.
    Increase in long-term net direct spending and deficits: 
None of the bills would increase net direct spending or on-
budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods 
beginning in 2035.
    Mandates: The following bills--H.R. 2964, H.R. 3950, H.R. 
6125, and H.R. 6543--would impose mandates as defined in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
    H.R. 2964, WIPPES Act: The bill would impose 
intergovernmental and private-sector mandates, but CBO 
estimates that the costs to comply with those mandates would 
not exceed the thresholds established in UMRA ($100 million and 
$200 million in 2024, respectively, adjusted annually for 
inflation).
    H.R. 2964 would preempt some state and local laws governing 
the labeling of certain disposable wipes. Although the 
preemptions would limit the application of state and local 
laws, they would impose no duty on state or local governments 
that would result in significant spending or loss of revenues.
    The bill would require manufacturers of certain disposable 
wipes to clearly mark their products with a ``do not flush'' 
label and symbol. Because manufacturers already are complying 
with similar laws enacted in California, Illinois, and several 
other states, CBO estimates that the cost for manufacturers to 
comply with the mandate would be small.
    H.R. 3950, TICKET Act: The bill would impose private-sector 
mandates as defined in UMRA on ticket sellers and resellers by 
requiring certain changes, including new refund policies, to 
the ticketing process. CBO estimates that the aggregate cost to 
comply with the mandates would be above the threshold 
established in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($200 million 
in 2024, adjusted annually for inflation).
    Under the bill, if an event is canceled, ticket sellers and 
resellers would be required to refund the full ticket price, 
including taxes and fees, to purchasers. If an event is 
postponed, sellers and resellers would be required to offer 
customers either a full refund or a replacement ticket, if 
available, subject to the customer's preference. Sellers also 
would be required to disclose this refund policy. The bill 
allows for exceptions to this policy in cases where the 
cancellation or postponement is beyond the control of the 
ticket issuer, such as natural disasters. Based on discussions 
with industry sources, a substantial share of sellers and 
resellers already provide full refunds for canceled events but 
few offer refunds for postponed events. Considerable 
uncertainty surrounds the ways that federal regulations might 
define what is within the control of a ticket issuer in the 
event of a cancellation or postponement or what might 
constitute comparable replacement events. Given the large size 
of the industry and the amount of revenue generated by ticketed 
events, CBO estimates that the cost of the mandate would exceed 
the threshold for private-sector mandates.
    H.R. 3950 also would require ticket sellers and resellers 
to make certain up-front disclosures to consumers. They would 
need to disclose the total ticket prices, including taxes and 
fees. Those disclosures would occur when the ticket is first 
displayed to the consumer and in any advertisements or 
marketing. The bill also would require sellers and resellers to 
provide purchasers with an itemized list of the base price and 
all fees. Information from the industry indicates that most 
ticket sellers have already begun to provide the total cost to 
consumers in advance; thus, CBO expects that the additional 
requirements in the bill would have small costs for ticket 
sellers and resellers.
    The bill also would require ticket resellers to disclose to 
consumers that they are resellers before any purchase is 
complete. Sellers and resellers would be prohibited from 
advertising or selling any ticket that the seller does not 
actually or constructively possess. In certain instances, 
sellers also would be prohibited from revealing to consumers 
and using the names of venues, teams, artists, and events in 
their online domain names. CBO expects that those disclosures 
and prohibitions would impose minimal costs on the sellers.
    The bill contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined 
in UMRA.
    H.R. 6125, Online Dating Safety Act of 2023: The bill would 
impose intergovernmental and private-sector mandates, but CBO 
estimates that the costs to comply with those mandates would 
not exceed the thresholds established in UMRA ($100 million and 
$200 million in 2024, respectively, adjusted annually for 
inflation).
    The bill would preempt state laws governing fraud 
notifications issued by online dating services. Although the 
preemptions would limit the application of state and local 
laws, they would impose no duty on state or local governments 
that would result in significant spending or loss of revenues.
    H.R. 6125 would require providers of online dating services 
to send a fraud notification to consumers who receive a message 
from any member who has been banned by the service. Because 
some states already require those fraud notifications, most 
dating services have implemented the policy regardless of the 
consumer's location. Therefore, CBO expects that the cost to 
comply with the mandate would be small.
    H.R. 6543, No Hidden FEES Act of 2023: The bill would 
impose intergovernmental and private-sector mandates, but CBO 
estimates that the costs to comply with those mandates would 
not exceed the thresholds established in UMRA ($100 million and 
$200 million in 2024, respectively, adjusted annually for 
inflation).
    The bill would preempt state and local laws governing the 
display of prices for short-term lodging. Although the 
preemptions would limit the application of state and local 
laws, they would impose no duty on state or local governments 
that would result in significant spending or loss of revenues.
    H.R. 6543 would prohibit providers, online booking 
websites, and advertisers of short-term lodging from displaying 
prices that do not include all mandatory fees. Information from 
industry sources and the FTC indicates that several lodging 
providers already comply with provisions in the bill, and CBO 
expects the cost for other entities to comply would be small 
because they already possess the fee information required to be 
displayed.
    Previous CBO estimate: On October 25, 2023, CBO transmitted 
a cost estimate for S. 1303, the TICKET Act, as reported by the 
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on 
September12, 2023. Under H.R. 3950, regulated companies would 
be required to fulfill requirements that are additional to 
those specified in S. 1303; for example, if an event is 
canceled or postponed, a ticket seller would need to provide a 
full refund or replacement ticket. In addition, H.R. 3950 would 
require the FTC to report to the Congress on its enforcement of 
the Better Online Ticket Sales Act of 2016. CBO's estimated 
federal costs for both bills are the same. Because of the 
additional refund requirements on ticket sellers and resellers 
in H.R. 3950, CBO has determined that the cost of the private-
sector mandates is above the threshold.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: David Hughes; 
Mandates: Rachel Austin and Grace Watson.
    Estimate reviewed by: Justin Humphrey, Chief, Finance, 
Housing, and Education Cost Estimates Unit; Kathleen FitzGerald 
Chief, Public and Private Mandates Unit; H. Samuel Papenfuss, 
Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.
    Estimate approved by: Phillip L. Swagel, Director, 
Congressional Budget Office.

                       FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act.

         STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general 
performance goal or objective of this legislation is to allow 
online dating services to notify users when they have been 
communicating with a user who has been removed from the 
platform.

                    DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII, no provision of 
H.R. 6125 is known to be duplicative of another Federal 
program, including any program that was included in a report to 
Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139 or the 
most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.

              RELATED COMMITTEE AND SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(6) of rule XIII, the following 
related hearing was used to develop or consider H.R. 6125:
           On September 27, 2023, the Subcommittee on 
        Innovation, Data, and Commerce held a hearing on H.R. 
        6125. The title of the hearing was ``Proposals to 
        Enhance Product Safety and Transparency for 
        Americans.'' The Subcommittee received testimony from:
                   Kathleen Callahan, Owner, 
                Xpertech Auto Repair;
                   Scott Benavidez, Chairman, 
                Automotive Service Association;
                   Steven Michael Gentine, Counsel, 
                Arnold & Porter, LLP;
                   John Breyault, Vice President of 
                Public Policy, Telecommunications and Fraud, 
                National Consumers League; and,
                   David Touhey, Principal, Connett 
                Consulting, appearing on behalf of 
                International Association of Venue Managers.

                        COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII, the Committee 
adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by the Director of 
the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

       EARMARK, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, AND LIMITED TARIFF BENEFITS

    Pursuant to clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI, the 
Committee finds that H.R. 6125 contains no earmarks, limited 
tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits.

                      ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 
legislation.

                  APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

             SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

Section 1. Short title

    Section 1 allows the Act to be cited as the ``Online Dating 
Safety Act of 2023.

Section 2. Online dating safety

    Section 2 requires online dating service providers to 
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. The section details 
the requirements of the fraud ban notification requirement for 
online dating service providers, allows for Federal Trade 
Commission and States Attorneys General to enforce the 
requirement, and provides relevant definitions of terms used in 
the Act.

         CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

    This legislation does not amend any existing Federal 
statute.

                                  [all]