A Democratic bill with 6 Republican cosponsors · See all 11 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The "Safeguarding Consumers from Advertising Misconduct Act" (or "SCAM Act") makes it illegal for online platforms to display fraudulent or deceptive commercial ads if they accepted payment and failed to take reasonable prevention steps. It requires platforms to verify advertiser identities, use detection systems, and provide tools for users to report scams. Platforms must investigate reports within 72 hours and remove violating ads within 24 hours of a determination. The bill allows the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), state attorneys general, and injured individuals to take legal action for violations. Additionally, the FTC must report on whether further laws are needed to stop online financial scams.
Yes· 3 of 30
- Scored +10
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
The bill significantly enhances consumer protection by prohibiting fraudulent ads and providing legal recourse for victims.
- Scored +8
Would people over 65 be better off under this?
Targets the high volume of financial losses reported by older adults.
- Scored +8
Would retired people be better off under this?
Directly addresses the high financial losses experienced by older adults.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Would business owners be better off under this?
Increases compliance costs for those operating online platforms.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Verification of Advertisers: Online platforms must verify the legal name, physical location, and government-issued identification of advertisers, which helps prevent the use of fake or stolen identities (Section 3(b)(1)(A)).
-
Faster Response to Scams: Platforms are required to investigate reported fraudulent ads within 72 hours and remove them within 24 hours if they violate the Act, reducing the time people are exposed to scams (Section 3(b)(2)).
-
User Reporting Tools: Platforms must provide a clear and conspicuous tool for users to report suspected fraudulent or deceptive ads (Section 3(b)(1)(D)).
-
Legal Recourse for Victims: Injured individuals can sue for actual damages, and if the violation was willful or knowing, the court may increase the award up to 3 times the amount (Section 3(f)(1)-(2)).
-
Recovery of Costs: A prevailing plaintiff in a civil action is entitled to litigation costs and reasonable attorney's fees (Section 3(f)(3)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Limited Scope of "Deceptive": The bill limits the definition of "deceptive" to practices likely to cause financial harm, which may exclude other types of deceptive advertising that do not result in direct financial loss (Section 5(2)(C)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would retired people be better off under this? — Directly addresses the high financial losses experienced by older adults. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Targets the high volume of financial losses reported by older adults. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Financial scams are disproportionately damaging to those with fewer assets. Would students be better off under this? — Specifically targets the high rate of scams among young adults. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Directly addresses high rates of social media scam victimization for ages 18-29. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Protects adult consumers from financial fraud via online ads. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Provides protections and legal recourse for victims of digital fraud. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Broadly improves safety for all consumers against financial predation. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Broadly improves safety for all consumers against financial predation. Would children be better off under this? — Reduces exposure to scams on platforms frequently used by youth. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Broadly improves safety for all consumers against financial predation. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Protects vulnerable populations from predatory financial schemes. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — Broadly improves safety for all consumers against financial predation. Would men be better off under this? — Reduces risk of financial exploitation via digital advertising fraud. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Broadly improves safety for all consumers against financial predation. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Increases protections for users who may be more susceptible to deceptive ads. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Protects a group often targeted by government impersonation scams. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Broadly improves safety for all consumers against financial predation. Would women be better off under this? — Reduces risk of financial exploitation via romance and health scams. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Reduces likelihood of falling victim to sophisticated high-value scams. Would high-income households be better off under this? — General increase in safety and fraud prevention for all users. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Reduces likelihood of falling victim to sophisticated high-value scams. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Reduces likelihood of falling victim to sophisticated high-value scams. Would business owners be better off under this? — Increases compliance costs for those operating online platforms.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill significantly enhances consumer protection by prohibiting fraudulent ads and providing legal recourse for victims.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more rules on large technology companies? — The bill imposes strict verification and moderation requirements on online platforms. Does this give people more control over their personal data? — Requires platforms to verify identities, which increases accountability but may involve collecting more ID data.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Grants the FTC expanded authority to regulate online platform advertising practices. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Explicitly allows state attorneys general to bring civil actions to protect residents.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this better protect the country from computer attacks? — The bill mandates better identity verification and detection systems to combat digital fraud.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — By reducing financial losses from scams, the bill helps protect the assets of vulnerable populations.
- 11/9/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 9/14/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 4/13/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 3/24/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/10/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/4/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 2/4/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Katie BrittRepublican · Alabama
Susan CollinsRepublican · Maine
Christopher CoonsDemocrat · Delaware
Lindsey GrahamRepublican · South Carolina
Kirsten GillibrandDemocrat · New York
Cindy Hyde-SmithRepublican · Mississippi
Amy KlobucharDemocrat · Minnesota
Bernie MorenoRepublican · Ohio
David McCormickRepublican · Pennsylvania
Elissa SlotkinDemocrat · Michigan
Peter WelchDemocrat · Vermont