SCR 120 is a Senate concurrent resolution that designates a seven‑day consumer awareness period and a separate awareness day and urges Californians to engage in education and prevention activities. The resolution asks state and local agencies, community groups, and consumer advocates to share resources, raise awareness about fraud and data risks, and promote marketplace transparency.
The bill is declaratory and does not change substantive law or appropriate funds; its value lies in setting an organizing frame for outreach. For organizations that run consumer education, elder‑fraud prevention, or cybersecurity campaigns, the resolution creates a focal point for coordinated communications and partner activity but does not create new enforcement powers or funding streams.
At a Glance
What It Does
SCR 120 is a nonbinding concurrent resolution that proclaims a week of consumer protection awareness and designates a single 'Slam the Scam' awareness day. It directs no regulatory changes or appropriations; instead it encourages agencies, nonprofits, and businesses to amplify existing resources and education efforts.
Who It Affects
State and local consumer protection agencies, community organizations and legal aid groups that run outreach, advocacy organizations focused on elder and vulnerable populations, and private-sector actors that handle consumer complaints or fraud prevention (banks, payment processors, telecom providers). Individuals vulnerable to scams are the intended beneficiaries of outreach.
Why It Matters
The resolution creates a predictable window for coordinated messaging and partnership-building, which can increase reach for educational efforts at low administrative cost. Because it carries no funding or mandates, its practical impact depends on voluntary action and how organizations use the proclamation as a convening tool.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SCR 120 compiles a series of legislative findings about the prevalence and harm of consumer scams and then resolves that the Legislature proclaims a consumer‑protection awareness period and a single day focused on scams. The resolution explicitly encourages Californians to take advantage of available resources and for public and private actors to promote fraud prevention and data‑protection practices.
Because this is a concurrent resolution, it does not create new regulatory duties or shift money between programs. The operative language is hortatory: it asks actors to act, not to compel action.
Practically, the resolution functions as a communications anchor—public agencies can cite it when scheduling press releases, community partners can time workshops to coincide with the week, and private firms can coordinate customer alerts or informational campaigns.The bill foregrounds government impostor schemes and other digital fraud vectors as an organizing rationale for the week. That focus makes the resolution useful to groups who already operate helplines, financial‑fraud training, or elder‑protection programs: they get a clear, legislatively recognized moment to consolidate outreach, recruit volunteers, or push educational toolkits.
What it does not do is create metrics, require reporting, or fund outreach; any measurable effect will come from voluntary follow‑through by agencies and community partners.Finally, the resolution includes a routine procedural direction to transmit copies of the text to the author for distribution. There is no fiscal committee referral noted in the bill, which aligns with its lack of appropriations or new programmatic commitments.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution is nonbinding: it is a concurrent resolution that proclaims awareness dates and contains no regulatory mandates or funding authorizations.
The bill highlights government impostor scams—criminals impersonating agencies such as Social Security, Medicare, USPS, and the IRS—as a central rationale for the awareness effort.
SCR 120 cites a 2023 Federal Trade Commission finding that consumer fraud losses reached at least $10,000,000,000 and that approximately 8 percent of adults reported losing money to a scam.
The legislative findings note that many reported scam losses are $500 or less while tens of thousands of victims suffered losses exceeding $10,000, and that older adults reported larger median losses in government‑impostor schemes.
The resolution directs the Secretary of the Senate to transmit copies of the resolution to the author for distribution; it does not assign implementation responsibility to a state agency.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Statement of facts and rationale
The bill opens with multiple WHEREAS clauses summarizing the problem: rising digital commerce risks, data misuse, misleading advertising, and the prominence of government impostor scams. These findings compile federal statistics and behavioral observations to justify the proclamation. For practitioners, the preamble is the bill’s policy framing: it signals legislative priorities (elder protection, fraud prevention, privacy) that agencies and advocates can cite when designing outreach.
Proclamation and public encouragement
This clause formally proclaims the awareness period and the single 'Slam the Scam' day and urges all Californians to engage in consumer education and use available resources. Legally, this language is hortatory rather than mandatory—its purpose is to encourage coordination and publicity rather than to instruct agencies to take specific actions.
Transmission instruction
A short administrative direction requires the Secretary of the Senate to transmit copies to the author for distribution. This is a routine legislative step that facilitates dissemination to stakeholders and partner groups; it does not create duties for state executive branch agencies.
No fiscal committee referral; no appropriation
The digest indicates 'Fiscal Committee: NO,' reflecting that the resolution does not appropriate funds or require a fiscal analysis. For compliance officers and budget officers, the practical implication is that there is no new funded program created by the resolution; any outreach will need to be absorbed within existing agency or organizational resources.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Older adults and other vulnerable consumers — targeted messaging and a coordinated awareness week can increase detection and reporting of government‑impostor and other scams that disproportionately harm these groups.
- Consumer advocacy and nonprofit organizations — the resolution provides a legislatively sanctioned window to boost visibility, solicit volunteers, and coordinate statewide campaigns without needing a separate bill.
- State and local consumer protection offices — the proclamation gives agencies a low‑cost occasion to repackage existing materials, run joint communications, and justify outreach in stakeholder briefings.
- Private sector fraud‑prevention teams (banks, fintechs, telecom providers) — these firms can align customer alerts and compliance outreach with the awareness week to increase uptake of protective practices.
Who Bears the Cost
- State and local agencies with consumer‑outreach responsibilities — they may need to reallocate staff time and communication resources to produce materials or run campaigns without new funding.
- Community organizations and legal aid providers — expected to participate in outreach but often operating on tight budgets, so the week could impose opportunity costs unless funders step in.
- Volunteer call centers and elder‑services programs — spikes in inquiries after awareness efforts can increase operational load and service demand without guaranteed support.
- Legislative staff and the Secretary of the Senate — minimal administrative tasks (dissemination, coordination requests) fall to existing legislative offices with no extra appropriation.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between the low political and fiscal cost of a symbolic proclamation and the practical need for sustained resources to prevent and respond to fraud: awareness alone can move some metrics, but without funding, designated leads, and measurable goals, the resolution may produce attention without meaningful reductions in consumer harm.
The resolution’s principal limitation is its hortatory character: it creates a named period for outreach but does not provide funding, reporting requirements, or implementation authority. That makes it a useful convening tool but a weak mechanism for producing sustained prevention or enforcement outcomes.
Organizations relying on the resolution to mobilize activity will either absorb costs internally or need separate grants or budget authority.
Operationally, the resolution raises coordination questions that it does not answer: which state office (Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Unit, Department of Aging, or other) should lead messaging; how to avoid mixed messages across dozens of local partners; and how to measure whether the week reduces scam losses. There is also a risk of campaign duplication with federal initiatives—without a central plan, outreach may fragment and produce inconsistent guidance for consumers.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.