Dating apps must warn you within 24 hours if you messaged a scammer

What it does

This bill requires online dating platforms to notify users within 24 hours (or up to 3 days in certain circumstances) if they have messaged someone whose account was banned for suspected fraud. The notification must include the banned user's profile identifier, a warning that the person may have used a false identity or attempted fraud, advice not to send money or personal financial information, fraud-prevention tips, and customer service contact information. The FTC enforces compliance as an unfair or deceptive practice; states can also sue on behalf of residents. The bill preempts state laws that would impose different notification requirements, creating a single federal standard.

Why we flagged it

The bill's operative mechanism is a mandatory notification requirement designed to alert dating-app users to fraud risk. It is a straightforward consumer-protection mandate with FTC enforcement, not a tax provision, subsidy, or deregulation.

What the text implies

• The 24-hour notification window may be difficult for platforms to meet if fraud detection is manual or delayed; the 3-day extension provides flexibility but may leave users exposed longer than intended.
• Law enforcement can request indefinite delays in notification, potentially leaving victims unaware of fraud risk for extended periods if an investigation is ongoing.
• The safe harbor protects platforms from liability for complying with the notification requirement, but does not shield them from liability for negligent fraud detection or failure to ban fraudsters in the first place.
• Preemption of state law creates a federal floor; states cannot impose stricter notification timelines or additional fraud-prevention requirements, which may reduce competition in consumer protection standards.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

Ordinary users gain a concrete protective mechanism—timely warning when they have interacted with a known scammer—reducing their exposure to financial fraud and identity theft. The notification requirement is transparent, carries no cost to users, and is backed by FTC enforcement. The safe harbor for platforms is narrow and does not shield them from liability for failing to notify or for other misconduct.

Named in the bill

Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Online dating service providers, State attorneys general, Law enforcement officials

Where it stands

3 cosponsors: 2 Democrats, 1 Republicans.

• Mar 4, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in Senate”
• Mar 4, 2025 — Referred to Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation · Congress.gov: “Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation”
• Mar 12, 2025 — Reported out of committee · Congress.gov: “Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of…”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

4 lobbying clients named this bill on 7 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $3,760,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 5 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 72% of bills with at least one filing.

Marsha Blackburn, the sponsor, reported $133,620 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• American Association for Justice — $3,610,000 on 2 filings
• Match Group Holdings I, LLC — $100,000 on 2 filings
• Bumble Trading LLC — $50,000 on 1 filing
• Cornerstone Government Affairs Obo Match Group Holdings I, LLC — $0 on 2 filings

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.