The Stop SCAMS Act requires the Director of the FBI, working with the CFPB, FTC, and other appropriate agencies, to develop and implement a governmentwide strategy to counter scams. Within one year the FBI must produce the strategy, adopt a single definition of “scam” and scam types, and explore ways to harmonize data collection (including scam type, dollar loss, and payment method); within two years the government must produce a unified estimate of annual victims and dollar losses that accounts for unreported incidents.
The bill creates parallel, agency‑level obligations for the FBI, CFPB, and FTC to report the number of complaints they each receive about scams, estimate associated dollar losses, and establish metrics and plans to measure the effectiveness of their anti‑scam training (in‑person and webinars). Agencies must make these estimates public in their annual reports.
The measure aims to provide a single national baseline for measuring scam harm and agency responses—information that will shape enforcement priorities, resource requests, and consumer protection strategies.
At a Glance
What It Does
Directs the FBI to lead a coordinated, governmentwide anti‑scam strategy and adopt one working definition of “scam.” It requires harmonized data fields (e.g., scam type, dollar loss, payment method) within one year and a governmentwide estimate of victims and losses within two years. It also forces the FBI, CFPB, and FTC to report agency complaint counts and dollar loss estimates and to create metrics for anti‑scam training.
Who It Affects
Primary obligations fall on federal agencies—most directly the FBI, CFPB, and FTC—and any other agencies the FBI designates to participate. Downstream, the bill will affect entities that supply scam data to federal agencies (banks, payment processors, online platforms) and researchers, policymakers, and consumer advocates who rely on standardized data.
Why It Matters
The bill seeks to replace fragmented, inconsistent scam reporting with a single definition and common data fields so policymakers can quantify harm and target enforcement. That standardization can improve prioritization and allocation of resources but creates practical challenges around measurement, data sharing, privacy, and funding.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Stop SCAMS Act puts the FBI in the driver’s seat for a governmentwide effort to counter scams. Within 12 months the FBI, coordinating with the CFPB, FTC, and others, must write and implement a strategy that aligns federal activity against scams and establishes a single working definition and taxonomy of scam types.
The bill specifically directs agencies to explore harmonizing certain data fields — the text names scam type, dollar loss amount, and payment method as examples — to make different complaint streams comparable.
Beyond definitions and data fields, the Act imposes parallel reporting duties. The FBI, CFPB, and FTC each must publish an estimate of how many scam complaints they receive annually and the associated dollar losses.
They also must develop metrics and a plan to measure how effective their anti‑scam training is, including both in‑person sessions and webinars. Those agency estimates must be made public as part of any annual report on scams.On a broader timetable, the bill requires a governmentwide estimate — produced within two years — of the total number of consumers harmed by scams each year and the total dollar losses, explicitly factoring in an estimate of unreported incidents.
That requirement pushes agencies beyond simple complaint counts toward modeling and survey work (or aggregating third‑party research) to capture dark‑figure losses. The Act contains a short definitions section that clarifies statutory terms for agency implementation but does not allocate funding or specify enforcement penalties.Implementation will be an exercise in coordination: the FBI determines which additional agencies participate, agencies must reconcile different statutory authorities and confidentiality rules when they harmonize data, and they must design training metrics that produce comparable outcomes.
The bill is procedural and infrastructural — it creates obligations to define, measure, and report rather than imposing new prohibitions on private actors — but those obligations will shape enforcement and oversight by producing comparable nationwide data.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Deadline: The FBI must deliver a governmentwide anti‑scam strategy, a single definition of “scam,” and a plan to harmonize data collection within 1 year of enactment.
Data fields: The bill explicitly directs agencies to consider consistent collection of scam type, dollar loss amount, and payment method (plus other fields the FBI deems appropriate).
Government estimate: Within 2 years the government must publish a single estimate of the annual number of consumers affected by scams and total dollar losses, including an estimate of unreported incidents.
Agency reporting: The FBI, CFPB, and FTC each must report their annual scam complaint counts and estimated dollar losses and establish metrics and a plan to measure the effectiveness of anti‑scam training (in‑person and webinar formats).
Public disclosure: Agencies must make these agency estimates publicly available in any annual report on scams; the bill sets reporting requirements but does not appropriate funds or create new enforcement penalties.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the Act its name: the Stop Schemes, Cyberfraud, Abuse, Manipulation, and Swindles Act, or Stop SCAMS Act. This is a formal label only; it carries no substantive obligations or definitions beyond signaling the bill’s focus.
Governmentwide strategy, single definition, and harmonized data
Requires the FBI Director, coordinating with the CFPB, FTC, and other agencies as the Director selects, to develop and implement a governmentwide strategy to counter scams within one year. The provision mandates adoption of a single definition and taxonomy of scam types and directs the group to explore harmonizing data collection — naming scam type, dollar loss amount, and payment method as example fields. Practically, agencies will need to reconcile differing legal authorities and existing intake schemas to build interoperable data; the provision does not prescribe a technical standard or a central database, only a harmonization obligation.
Governmentwide estimate of victims and losses
Directs agencies to develop and report a single governmentwide estimate, due within two years, of how many consumers are affected by scams each year and the dollar losses, explicitly requiring an estimate of incidents that go unreported. Producing that estimate will require agencies to select methodologies (surveys, modeling, synthesis of complaint channels, or third‑party data), set assumptions about underreporting, and agree on scope (domestic incidents only, cross‑border, consumer vs. business losses).
Agency‑level reporting and training metrics for FBI, CFPB, and FTC
Creates mirror duties for the FBI, CFPB, and FTC to (A) report an estimate of the number of complaints they each receive about scams annually and the associated estimated dollar losses, and (B) establish metrics and a plan to measure the effectiveness of their anti‑scam training (covering in‑person events and webinars). Each agency must complete these tasks within one year of enactment. The requirement forces agencies to build consistent intake and training‑evaluation processes and to disclose their internal counts publicly.
Public reporting requirement
Requires that the FBI, CFPB, and FTC make their complaint and loss estimates publicly available in any annual report on scams. The text ties disclosure to annual reporting obligations but does not set a uniform reporting format or frequency beyond that linkage; agencies will decide presentation and supplemental material.
Definitions
Provides statutory definitions for key terms used in the section — defining 'agency' by reference to 5 U.S.C. 551 and naming the 'Bureau' and 'Commission' as shorthand for the CFPB and FTC, and 'Director' for the FBI Director. The definitions section narrows interpretive disputes about which entities are covered but leaves substantive definitions (e.g., the content of 'scam') to the new single definition the FBI must adopt.
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
- Consumers who are scam victims: Standardized definitions and unified loss estimates should surface the scale and patterns of harm, informing enforcement priorities, restitution strategies, and targeted outreach to vulnerable populations.
- Consumer advocacy groups and researchers: Harmonized data fields and public agency estimates will enable comparative analysis, trend tracking, and evidence‑based policy recommendations that were difficult under fragmented complaint streams.
- Federal law enforcement and regulatory agencies: A common taxonomy and consolidated estimates will improve situational awareness, help prioritize investigations, and support coordinated operations across agencies that previously worked with inconsistent data.
Who Bears the Cost
- FBI, CFPB, and FTC: Each agency must allocate staff and analytic capacity to create harmonized intake, produce estimates, and design training metrics; those duties are new operational costs unless Congress provides funding.
- Private data holders (banks, payment processors, online platforms): Although the bill stops short of direct mandates on private firms, agencies will likely seek comparable data from these entities to build the governmentwide estimate, raising compliance and integration costs for those organizations.
- Congressional appropriators and oversight bodies: To make the reporting and analytic requirements meaningful, Congress may face pressure to fund new surveys, data systems, or interagency platforms—creating budget and oversight implications not addressed in the bill.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between the benefits of standardization (comparable national metrics, clearer priorities, and coordinated responses) and the costs of forcing uniformity onto a heterogeneous problem: measurement choices, privacy constraints, resource gaps, and differing agency missions mean that creating one definition and one set of data fields can improve clarity but may also obscure important distinctions and strain agency capacity.
The bill sets clear deliverables — definitions, harmonized fields, complaint counts, training metrics, and a governmentwide estimate of victims and losses — but leaves the precise methods, technical standards, and funding to the agencies. That creates immediate implementation questions: how will agencies model unreported incidents, which statistical techniques will they use, and how will they reconcile differences in jurisdictional coverage (consumer vs. business, domestic vs. cross‑border)?
Those methodological choices will materially shape the final loss estimates and their policy implications.
Standardization promises comparability but risks oversimplifying diverse wrongdoing: a single legal or operational definition of “scam” may flatten distinctions between impersonation fraud, investment scams, romance scams, and mass‑marketing fraud—differences that matter for investigative tools and legal authority. Harmonizing data also raises privacy and legal constraints; agencies must navigate confidentiality rules, consumer privacy statutes, and different evidence standards when sharing or aggregating complaint data.
Finally, the Act imposes reporting and measurement duties without providing appropriations or specifying enforcement mechanisms; effectiveness will depend on whether agencies receive sustained resources and political support to build the required systems and analyses.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.