[Senate Report 119-58]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 145
119th Congress } { Report
SENATE
1st Session } { 119-58
_______________________________________________________________________
ROMANCE SCAM PREVENTION ACT
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND
TRANSPORTATION
on
S. 841
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
September 2, 2025.--Ordered to be printed
------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
59-010 WASHINGTON : 2025
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
one hundred nineteenth congress
first session
TED CRUZ, Texas, Chairman
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
JERRY MORAN, Kansas EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
TODD YOUNG, Indiana TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
TED BUDD, North Carolina JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
ERIC SCHMITT, Missouri BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
JOHN CURTIS, Utah JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado
BERNIE MORENO, Ohio JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania
TIM SHEEHY, Montana ANDY KIM, New Jersey
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
Brad Grantz, Majority Staff Director
Lila Harper Helms, Democratic Staff Director
Calendar No. 145
119th Congress } { Report
SENATE
1st Session } { 119-58
=======================================================================
ROMANCE SCAM PREVENTION ACT
----------------
September 2, 2025.--Ordered to be printed
----------------
Mr. Cruz, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 841]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to
which was referred the bill (S. 841) 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, in the nature of a substitute, and recommends that
the bill, as amended, do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of S. 841 is to require online dating service
providers to provide fraud ban notifications to online dating
service customers, and for other purposes.
BACKGROUND AND NEEDS
In 2024, over 59,000 consumers lost nearly $1.2 billion to
romance scams, with a median loss of $2,000, according to
consumer fraud reports filed with the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC).\1\ The losses continue a 4-year trend, as romance scams
continue to be one of the most popular forms of scams among
fraudsters online.\2\ In 2023, more than 64,000 Americans lost
over $1 billion in romance scams--double the $500 million lost
to such scams just 4 years earlier.\3\ Romance scams are a
subcategory of what the FTC calls imposter scams, where a
fraudster gains a consumer's trust in order to get a consumer
to send money or personal information. Over the last 4 years,
imposter scams have been the most prevalent form of online scam
reported to the FTC, outpacing all others, in part driven by
the rise in romance scams.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\``FTC Consumer Sentinel Network: Romance Scams,'' Federal Trade
Commission, accessed March 7, 2025, https://public.tableau.com/app/
profile/federal.trade.commission/viz/shared/4WS8HTYQ6.
\2\Ibid. Selecting all four quarters for 2024, and sorting by the
number of reports, and separately the total dollars lost; see also
Federal Trade Commission, Consumer Sentinel Network Data Book 2024, p.
4 (last visited March 12, 2025, https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/
ftc_gov/pdf/csn-annual-data-book-2024.pdf; see also Emma Fletcher,
``Romance Scams Take Record Dollars in 2020,'' Federal Trade
Commission, February 10, 2021, https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/data-
visualizations/data-spotlight/2021/02/romance-scams-take-record-
dollars-2020; see also Lesley Fair, ```Love Stinks'--When a Scammer Is
Involved,'' Federal Trade Commission,
February 13, 2024, https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/02/
love-stinks-when-scammer-involved.
\3\Jim Axelrod, ``Online Dating Scammers Bilk More Money Each Year.
A Bipartisan Bill in Congress Aims to Stop Them,'' CBS News, December
31, 2024, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/online-dating-scams-bipartisan-
bill-congress/.
\4\See supra note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The victims of romance scams are not limited to young
people dating online. In fact, such scams often target the
elderly and veterans. According to the FBI's most recent Elder
Fraud Report,\5\ more than 6,700 people over age 60 lost nearly
$367 million to romance scams in 2023.\6\ Separately, the
Department of Justice recently warned veterans that nearly 40
percent of the military community's fraud losses were the
result of imposter and romance scams.\7\ Over the last year,
romance scams have grown increasingly sophisticated with the
rise of AI tools\8\ and criminal organizations realizing the
potential for these scams to generate large profits. As a
result, there has been a rise in a particularly pernicious and
sophisticated romance scam known as pig butchering.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2023 IC3 Elder Fraud Report
accessed March 7, 2025, https://www.ic3.gov/AnnualReport/Reports/
2023_IC3ElderFraudReport.pdf.
\6\Ibid. at p. 7; see also National Council on Aging, ``Sweetheart
Scams: How to Avoid Being a Victim,'' February 21, 2025, https://
www.ncoa.org/article/sweetheart-scams-how-to-avoid-being-a-victim/.
\7\``Fraud,'' U.S. Department of Justice, https://www.justice.gov/
servicemembers/fraud.
\8\Brian New, ``I-Team: How AI Is Revolutionizing Internet Fraud,''
CBS News, May 15, 2024, https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/i-team-how-
ai-is-revolutionizing-internet-fraud/.
\9\Robert McMillan, ```Pig Butchering' Scams Go High-Tech,'' Wired,
March 6, 2024, https://www.wired.com/story/pig-butchering-scams-go-
high-tech/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This kind of romance scam is both a romance and investment
scam, where the scammer forms a relationship with the victim,
gradually lures the victim into making contributions into an
investment (usually in the form of cryptocurrency) and then,
once the victim has invested a significant sum, disappears with
the money.\10\ The FBI and Interpol have released warnings that
pig butchering scams are being run by transnational organized
crime groups.\11\ Moreover, there are reports that
cybercriminals are selling pig butchering kits to other
criminals online, adding to their proliferation.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Lily Hay Newman, ``What Is a `Pig Butchering' Scam?,'' Wired,
March 6, 2024, https://www.wired.com/story/what-is-pig-butchering-scam/.
\11\See, e.g., Federal Bureau of Investigation, ``Justice Dept.
Seizes Over $112M in Funds Linked to Cryptocurrency Investment Schemes,
With Over Half Seized in Los Angeles Case,'' press release, April 3,
2023, https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/justice-dept-seizes-over-
112m-funds-linked-cryptocurrency-investment-schemes-over-half.
\12\Sana Pashankar, ``Pig-Butchering Scam Kits for Sale on
Underground Markets,'' Bloomberg News, February 2, 2024, https://
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-02/online-
romance-scam-kits-for-sale-in-underground-markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Romance scams are often executed by scammers who (1) use
dating apps to find and target their victims; and (2) get their
victims to communicate off the application (e.g. text or email)
to prevent the platform from detecting the fraudulent behavior.
To combat the rise of romance scams, an online dating
service provider may deactivate the accounts of fraudsters when
the provider becomes aware of the fraud. Even if a scammer is
removed from the platform, the scammer may still try to engage
with and defraud the victims off of the platform. These victims
may never be notified that the person they are interacting with
has been identified as a possible fraudster, or may be
defrauding someone else.
This bill would require online dating service providers to
notify a customer if that customer has received a message
through the online dating service from a banned member. A
banned member is a member of an online dating service whose
account or profile has been terminated or suspended because
there is a significant risk that the member has defrauded or
will attempt to defraud another member.
This bill includes a safe harbor provision that would
incentivize an online dating service provider to ban members
for fraud and provide required fraud ban notifications by
ensuring a company would not be held liable for complying with
the fraud ban notification requirements of this Act. This bill
also would create a national standard for fraud ban
notification requirements.
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS
S. 841 would do the following:
Require all online dating service providers to
provide fraud ban notifications to members who have
received messages from users whose accounts have been
banned for fraudulent activity. Fraud ban notifications
would be required to include specific details about the
banned member and about how to avoid fraud when using
online dating services.
Require online dating service providers to ensure
timely notification within 24 hours of the fraud ban,
with exceptions allowing a delay of up to 3 days when
circumstances justify a delay or upon the request of
law enforcement.
Create a safe harbor for online dating service
providers such that the online dating service provider
is not liable to a member, a banned member, or a former
member for a claim based on the online dating service
provider's action to comply with the requirements for
providing the fraud ban under section 2, subsection (a)
of the Act.
Authorize enforcement by the Federal Trade
Commission and State attorneys general; treat
violations as unfair or deceptive practices under the
Federal Trade Commission Act.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\15 U.S.C. 41-58, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preempt any provision of State law, rule,
regulation, requirement, or standard that requires an
online dating service provider to notify, prohibits an
online dating service 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 customer has
exchanged messages with a banned member.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
S. 841 was introduced on March 4, 2025, by Senator
Blackburn (for herself and Senator Hickenlooper) and was
referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate. On March 12, 2025, the Committee
met in open Executive Session and, by voice vote, ordered S.
841 reported favorably with an amendment (in the nature of a
substitute).
H.R. 2481, a House companion bill to S. 841, was introduced
on March 31, 2025, by Representative Valadao (for himself and
Representatives Pettersen, Goldman, and Suozzi) and was
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House
of Representatives. On April 8, 2025, that Committee met in
open Executive Session and, by voice vote, ordered H.R. 2481
reported favorably.
118th Congress
Similar legislation, H.R. 6125, the Online Dating Safety
Act of 2023, was introduced on October 30, 2023, by
Representative Valadao (for himself and Representative
Pettersen) and was referred to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce in the House of Representatives. On December 6, 2023,
H.R. 6125, as amended, was ordered to be reported by a vote of
44-0. On September 23, 2024, the House passed H.R. 6125 by
voice vote, as amended, under suspension of the rules.
ESTIMATED COSTS
In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
S. 841 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.
Failure to comply would be considered an unfair or deceptive
practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) would be responsible for enforcement.
Providers would need to include, in a notification to an
affected user, information such as the username or profile
identifier of the banned member, a statement that the banned
member may have been using a false identity, as well as a
statement that members should not send money or personal
financial information to another member.
Using information from the FTC and based on the cost of
similar requirements, CBO estimates that implementing S. 841
would cost the FTC $4 million over the 2025-2030 period to
issue guidance and monitor and enforce those requirements. Any
related spending would be subject to the availability of
appropriated funds.
Companies that fail to meet the new requirements could face
civil penalties, which are generally remitted to the Treasury
and recorded as revenues. 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 2025-2030 period would be insignificant.
S. 841 would impose mandates as defined in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). CBO estimates that the costs to
comply with the intergovernmental and private-sector mandates
would not exceed the thresholds established in UMRA ($103
million and $206 million in 2025, 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.
S. 841 would require providers of online dating services to
send fraud notifications to consumers who receive a message
from a member who has been banned by the service. Because some
states already require those fraud notifications, most dating
services have implemented the notification policy regardless of
the consumer's location. Therefore, CBO expects the cost to
comply with the mandate would be small.
On June 27, 2025, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R.
2481, the Romance Scam Prevention Act, as passed by the House
of Representatives on June 23, 2025. The two pieces of
legislation are similar, and CBO's estimates of their budgetary
effects are the same.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Margot Berman
(for federal costs) and Rachel Austin (for mandates). The
estimate was reviewed by Christina Hawley Anthony, Deputy
Director of Budget Analysis.
Phillip L. Swagel,
Director, Congressional Budget Office.
REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT
In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the
legislation, as reported:
Number of Persons Covered
S. 841, as amended, would cover the following entities and
any employees retained by them:
Online dating service providers;
The attorney general of a State;
A consumer protection officer of a State; and
The Federal Trade Commission.
Economic Impact
Compliance costs associated with S. 841's requirements are
expected to be minimal. Fraud ban notifications will serve to
combat and reduce financial losses that result from romance
scams, which have cost consumers hundreds of millions of
dollars each year. Therefore, the bill, as amended, is expected
to save fraud victim money.
Privacy
S. 841, as amended, is not anticipated to impact the
personal privacy of individuals, other than individuals who
have been the subject of a fraud ban.
Paperwork
S. 841, as amended, is not anticipated to generate any
substantial amount of additional paperwork for the entities
regulated under this Act.
CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING
In compliance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides that no
provisions contained in the bill, as reported, meet the
definition of congressionally directed spending items under the
rule.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1. Short title
This section would provide that the bill may be cited as
the ``Romance Scam Prevention Act''.
Section 2. Romance scam prevention
This section would require online dating service providers
to provide a customer of the online dating service a fraud ban
notification if the customer has received a message through the
online dating service from a banned member of the dating
service.
This section would require the fraud ban notifications to
include required content and stipulate the manner and timing by
which the fraud ban was issued. The content of the fraud ban
notification would include the username of the banned member,
the most recent interaction the user had with the banned
member, a statement that the banned member may have been
attempting to defraud members, a statement that the user should
not send any form of currency or financial information to
another member, information regarding best practices to avoid
online fraud, and contact information for the customer service
department of the online dating service. The manner of the
notification shall be clear and conspicuous, provided by email,
text message, or other appropriate means of communication. The
timing must be not later than 24 hours after the member is
banned for fraud, with exceptions based on the judgment of the
provider or upon request of law enforcement.
Further, this section would create a safe harbor for online
dating service providers such that the online dating service
provider is not liable to a member, a banned member, or a
former member for a claim based on the online dating service
provider's action to comply with the requirements for providing
the fraud ban under section 2, subsection (a) of the Act.
This section would provide that a violation of this Act
shall be treated an unfair or deceptive act or practice under
section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act.\14\ It
would further authorize enforcement by the Federal Trade
Commission, State attorneys general, and other consumer
protection officers of a State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\15 U.S.C. 41-58, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This section would preempt a provision of any law, rule,
regulation, or standard having the force and effect of State
law, that would require 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 a 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.
This section would define the terms ``banned member'',
``Commission'', ``fraud ban'', ``member'', ``online dating
service'', ``online dating service provider'', and ``State''.
Lastly, this section would take effect 1 year after the
date of enactment.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that the
bill as reported would make no change to existing law.
[all]