The bill amends 18 U.S.C. §1038 to make it a federal crime to knowingly convey false or misleading information that could prompt an emergency response. It pairs criminal penalties with a private civil cause of action allowing parties that incur expenses from responding to such false reports to recover those costs.
This is a targeted attempt to deter “swatting” and related hoaxes by (1) creating a federal enforcement path alongside existing state laws, (2) escalating penalties where harm occurs, and (3) giving responders and other affected parties a direct method to recoup response and investigative expenses. For public-safety officials, municipalities, and organizations that regularly absorb swatting costs, the measure shifts the legal tools available for accountability and cost recovery.
At a Glance
What It Does
The amendment adds a two-part statutory trigger: one prong criminalizes false communications suggesting federally enumerated violent or security offenses where the false information may reasonably be believed; the other prong reaches false communications sent by mail or via interstate/foreign commerce that are reasonably expected to cause an emergency response and indicate criminal conduct or danger to health or safety. The statute requires an intent to convey false or misleading information and ties penalties to the degree of resulting harm.
Who It Affects
The bill primarily affects individuals who transmit false reports (including via phone, online platforms, or mail), local and state emergency responders who perform the deployments, and private organizations that provide fire or rescue services. It also touches federal law-enforcement agencies that investigate interstate hoaxes and municipalities that pay for emergency deployments.
Why It Matters
By federalizing a subset of swatting conduct and attaching a civil remedy for response costs, the bill changes who can pursue accountability and recover money after a hoax. That matters to city budgets, emergency-response planning, and prosecutors deciding whether to bring federal charges instead of or alongside state cases.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill revises the current federal statute governing false threat communications and creates two complementary enforcement paths. First, it expands the criminal provision so prosecutors can charge someone who, with intent, conveys false or misleading information under conditions where a recipient could reasonably believe it and where the content alleges conduct that would violate specified federal criminal provisions (for example: violent crimes, explosive or aviation-related offenses, or other listed chapters).
Second, it creates an alternate criminal trigger for false communications sent through the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce when those communications are reasonably expected to cause an emergency response and the content indicates criminal conduct or endangers safety.
For criminal cases the statute imposes a mens rea requirement: the defendant must intend to convey false or misleading information. The bill sets graduated punishments tied to the harm caused by the false report — a baseline term for the offense and much higher maximums if serious bodily injury or death results — giving prosecutors sentencing leverage where hoaxes produce real-world harm.
The text does not create new investigative powers, but it creates a federal offense that can be used where interstate elements exist or where federal statutes are implicated.Alongside the criminal changes, the bill adds a civil remedy: any party that incurs expenses “incident to any emergency or investigative response” to the false communication can bring suit to recover those expenses. That language reaches not only government responders but also private not-for-profit entities that provide fire or rescue functions, meaning municipalities, volunteer fire departments, and similar organizations can seek reimbursement for overtime, equipment use, and other direct response costs.
The civil cause of action does not specify a damages formula; it ties liability to the expenses actually incurred by the plaintiff.Finally, the bill clarifies what counts as an “emergency response,” defining it to include deployments of personnel or equipment, evacuation orders or warnings, and official warnings to the public or to a threatened person, organization, or establishment. The definition expressly includes agencies charged with crime detection, prevention, and investigation as well as private non-profit organizations providing fire or rescue services.
That definition determines both when the criminal prong (reasonably expected to cause an emergency response) is met and who may recover under the civil remedy.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends 18 U.S.C. §1038 to criminalize intentional false or misleading communications that a recipient could reasonably believe or that are reasonably expected to cause an emergency response.
It makes violators subject to a baseline criminal penalty and raises the maximum to up to 20 years imprisonment if serious bodily injury results and up to life if death results.
The statute creates a private civil right: any party that incurs expenses incident to an emergency or investigative response to the false communication can sue to recover those expenses.
There are two statutory triggers: (A) false information about enumerated federal offenses where the falsehood may be reasonably believed; and (B) false information sent by mail or via interstate/foreign commerce that is reasonably expected to cause an emergency response and indicates criminal conduct or danger.
The bill’s definition of “emergency response” expressly covers government public-safety agencies and private not-for-profit organizations that provide fire or rescue functions, widening who can claim recoverable response expenses.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
New criminalized conduct and mens rea
This portion rewrites the core criminal subsection to create two alternative paths for federal prosecution and centers liability on the defendant’s intent to convey false or misleading information. Practically, prosecutors must prove intent plus either (1) that the false information concerns conduct tied to a list of specified federal offenses and could reasonably be believed by recipients, or (2) that the communication was transmitted by mail or interstate/foreign commerce and was reasonably expected to cause an emergency response while indicating criminal conduct or danger. The change broadens federal reach where interstate channels are used or where the content mimics serious statutory offenses.
Harm-based maximum penalties
Also added are clear maximum penalties tied to outcomes: a baseline federal sentence (up to five years), an increased maximum where serious bodily injury results (up to 20 years), and life imprisonment where death results. These enhancements let prosecutors charge a single conduct that produced widely varying consequences with escalating exposure; they rely on causation principles in criminal law to link the defendant’s conduct to the harm that triggers the higher maximum.
Private civil remedy for response costs
Subsection (b) adds a civil cause of action allowing any party that incurs expenses incident to an emergency or investigative response to sue the person who conveyed the false or misleading information. The statutory language ties liability to incurred expenses rather than to a prescriptive damages schedule, which means courts and litigants will litigate what counts as recoverable expenses (overtime, equipment depreciation, mutual-aid costs, etc.). It also creates a direct path for non-governmental responders to seek reimbursement when they are forced into action by a hoax.
Defines “emergency response”
The bill inserts a definition that covers deployments of personnel or equipment, evacuation orders or advice, and warnings to the public or threatened parties. Importantly, the definition includes not only government agencies charged with public-safety roles but also private not-for-profit organizations that provide fire or rescue functions, expanding both the universe of potential plaintiffs in civil suits and the range of responses that can trigger criminal liability under the “reasonably expected to cause” prong.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Criminal Justice across all five countries.
Explore Criminal Justice 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
- Targeted individuals and households who are victims of swatting — they gain an additional federal enforcement avenue and a civil path to recover expenses tied to the incident.
- Local and state emergency-response agencies — they can seek reimbursement for tangible response and investigative costs, reducing the net fiscal burden of hoaxes.
- Private volunteer fire and rescue organizations — explicitly named in the definition of emergency response, they can recover costs when they are mobilized by false reports.
- Municipal governments and taxpayers — recovering response costs may relieve budgetary pressures caused by repeated hoaxes and change cost-allocation incentives.
- Federal law enforcement and prosecutors — the federal offense provides a tool to pursue cross-jurisdictional perpetrators who exploit interstate channels.
Who Bears the Cost
- Individuals who make false or misleading reports — they face criminal prosecution with significant exposure and civil liability for response expenses.
- Local government agencies initially responding to hoaxes — they still incur operational costs up front and may shoulder litigation burdens before any recovery is obtained.
- State and federal courts and prosecutors — the law is likely to increase caseloads for both criminal prosecutions and civil suits seeking reimbursement.
- Small volunteer or municipal responders — while eligible to recover, they may need to litigate to obtain money, imposing administrative and legal costs.
- Telecommunications and online service providers — although not directly regulated by this bill, they may receive increased preservation or disclosure requests in investigations, imposing compliance costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill embodies a familiar dilemma: it aims to deter dangerous hoaxes and shift response costs back to perpetrators, but it does so using broad, fact-intensive standards (reasonable belief/expectation and intent) that risk overcriminalizing ambiguous conduct, chilling legitimate reporting, and generating complex litigation over causation and recoverable expenses.
The bill raises several implementation and legal questions. First, the statute’s reliance on intent (“intent to convey false or misleading information”) and on fact-specific standards (“may reasonably be believed” and “may reasonably be expected to cause an emergency response”) will make proof heavily evidence-driven.
Prosecutors will need call records, device forensics, platform logs, or admissions to show intent and to establish what a reasonable recipient would have believed or expected. That evidentiary burden both narrows easy prosecution of casual pranksters and creates opportunities for contested factual litigation in close cases.
Second, the civil-liability language — liability to any party that incurs expenses “incident to any emergency or investigative response” — leaves open key dimensions: what expenses qualify, how plaintiffs must document them, whether costs covered include indirect harms (lost revenue, reputational damage), and how courts will treat mutual-aid or multi-jurisdictional cost allocations. The inclusion of private not-for-profit responders in the definition broadens potential plaintiffs but also risks a surge in small-dollar suits that could clog courts or impose collection burdens on plaintiffs and defendants alike.
Finally, there are constitutional and federalism considerations: the law touches core speech territory and overlaps with existing state swatting statutes, raising questions about federal prosecutorial priority, potential preemption, prosecutorial discretion, and how to avoid chilling legitimate emergency reporting.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.