pleenk
enfrespt
Book a demo
← Blog
pt-brfresende

Romance scams: your dating platform will have to warn members within 24 hours of a fraud ban

Published 26 October 2026Updated 3 November 20268 min readBy Pleenk Approve

Your moderation team has just banned a profile. Borrowed photos, a well-rehearsed story, then a request for money "for a plane ticket" after ten days. The account is closed and the case is filed. But that profile wrote to forty members last month. What do they know?

In the United States, warning those members is becoming a legal duty. The Romance Scam Prevention Act (H.R. 2481, its number in Congress) is a law against romance scams. It was signed on October 20, 2026. It requires dating sites to warn every member who received a message from an account banned for fraud. The deadline is, in principle, 24 hours. The law takes effect one year after signing, so in fall 2027.

The short answer: if your platform is open to US users, you have one year to answer three questions fast. Who talked to whom? Why did you ban this account? Does the ban really hold? These are questions about how your platform runs, not about age checks at the door.

What exactly does the law say?

The law covers sites and apps that arrange or facilitate connections for dating or romantic relationships. It does not cover social networks in general.

It rests on a simple idea: the "fraud ban". The platform suspends or closes an account because it judges the risk to be significant: this member is likely trying to get money from others through fraud. The platform must then warn every member who received a message from that account. The warning goes by email, text message or another channel the member has agreed to.

The notice must include, among other things:

  • the username of the banned profile and the date of the last exchange with it;
  • a warning that this person may have used a fake identity or tried to defraud members;
  • advice never to send money or financial information;
  • tips on how to protect yourself from fraud, and a customer service contact.

The text passed by the House of Representatives allows a few limited exceptions to this deadline. One example is when law enforcement asks to delay the notice for an ongoing investigation.

The FTC (Federal Trade Commission, the US consumer protection agency) and state attorneys general enforce the law. Under the FTC Act, the law that sets out the FTC's powers, a violation counts as an unfair or deceptive practice.

In return, the law creates a single national rule. It replaces the laws some states had already passed on this topic: Vermont, Arizona, Utah and New York, according to American Banker. It also protects the platform from lawsuits linked to sending the notice.

Why now?

Because losses are soaring. According to the FTC, as cited in the press, Americans reported nearly $1.5 billion in romance scam losses in 2025. That is a record.

A report cited by the ICIJ (International Consortium of Investigative Journalists) shows that scammers stay active for a long time on major platforms. The report comes from the minority members of the Joint Economic Committee, a committee of Congress. The median number of views of scammer profiles reportedly rose from under 70 to over 500. This increase reportedly happened between May 2024 and the end of 2025.

Lawmakers are sending a clear message: banning is no longer enough. Potential victims have already been contacted. The platform holds the information, so the platform must warn them.

On October 21, 2026, the European Commission opened an investigation into Booking.com. It is acting under the DSA (Digital Services Act), the EU regulation on digital services. It wants to check whether Booking.com properly assesses and reduces certain risks: fake listings, identity theft and phishing. Booking.com is not a dating site, and it is a very large platform with heavier obligations. But the question is the same: what are you actually doing about fake profiles that scam your users?

"Who talked to whom?": the question your product must be able to answer

The first challenge is not legal but technical. To send the notice within 24 hours, you need the list of members who received a message from the banned account, right away. For each one, you also need the date of the last exchange and their contact details.

Many platforms store messages to moderate them, not to find every recipient of an account quickly. Here is what we would do: test the query "all recipients of this account since it was created" now. We would measure how long it takes. We would also check what happens to deleted messages and to conversations on other channels (video, live, calls).

Think about your retention periods as well. The law sets no time limit on the messages it covers. If your data protection policy deletes messages after a few months, document that choice and its effect on notices.

A fraud ban should be a decision, not a reflex

The platform's own judgment triggers the duty. That is good news, and also a responsibility. Imagine your moderators ban for "suspicious behavior" without telling fraud apart from spam, harassment or a simple duplicate account. You then risk sending notices by mistake, or missing the ones that were needed.

Here is what we would do:

  • Define "fraud" as a ban reason in your terms of service and in your tools. Create a separate ban category with written criteria. For example: a request for money, crypto or gift cards, a push to move to another messaging app, or a stolen identity.
  • Keep a record of the decision. Note who decided, based on what evidence and at what time. That time starts the clock.
  • Plan for law enforcement requests. Have a clear procedure to hold a notice when an authority asks, then to send it when the delay ends.
  • Explain the decision to the banned member. For your EU users, the DSA already requires you to tell the person why their account is suspended (Article 17). It also requires you to describe these restrictions in your terms of service (Article 14).

A notice is useless if the scammer is back ten minutes later

The law does not say it, but everyone understands it. If a banned scammer can open a new account with a new email and phone number, you will be sending notices about them every week. Your members will stop reading them. And a regulator may wonder what you are really doing against fraud.

To hold, a ban must be tied to an identity, not to an account. So you need to verify profiles' identities, at least those showing risk signals. This check can combine a selfie with liveness detection, an ID document, and a match between the person and the profile photos. Liveness detection confirms that a real person is in front of the camera. Verifying everyone at sign-up is not always necessary. Verifying before the first message to a stranger, or as soon as money comes up, is often a good compromise.

On a live streaming platform with private messaging or tips, the same logic applies to streamers. An account that asks for money off-platform, disappears, then comes back: that is exactly what a PSP fears. A PSP (payment service provider) is the company that lets you accept card payments. A webcam or live platform that does not present itself as a dating service is not necessarily covered by this law. Your lawyer will decide, but good practice stays the same.

What about the money?

The law does not require you to refund victims. But a romance scam always ends in a payment, often off-platform: bank transfer, crypto, gift card. If your platform handles payments between members, virtual gifts or payouts to streamers, the question "who gets the money?" becomes central. A payout account shared between profiles, or not in the name of the verified identity, must be dealt with before the first payment.

Your PSP will look at this law closely. When a merchant's members get scammed, complaints and payment disputes pile up. On top of that comes a reputational risk that the acquirer shares with the merchant. The acquirer is the bank that processes card payments. With a documented ban procedure and notices sent on time, that conversation gets much easier.

How Pleenk Approve can help

At its core, Pleenk Approve is a single digital identity. Every member, streamer or co-performer is verified with a liveness check. Their identity is encrypted by Pleenk and stored in a single wallet, a digital identity wallet: your platform receives proof, never the ID document. All of the person's accounts are linked to this wallet, and so are any bans. A fraud ban therefore follows the person, not just the account, which limits comebacks under a new username. Certified Payment checks that the payout account really belongs to the verified person. Every decision is time-stamped and backed by proof, for your PSP or a regulator. Sending the notices to members stays on your side. Pleenk helps you make the decision that triggers those notices solid. Do you run a dating or live platform and want to take stock before the law takes effect? Write to us at contact@pleenk.com.

This article is for information only and does not constitute legal advice. The final text of the law and any FTC guidance may clarify some points. Have your implementation reviewed by your lawyer.

Sources

More articles
9 November 2026 · 8 min read
Human trafficking and cam studios: what a live streaming platform must check
6 November 2026 · 7 min read
Ofcom is investigating two adult services over non-consensual intimate images: what a PSP should ask its merchants
4 November 2026 · 7 min read
When an agency runs a creator's account: what your platform needs to control