HR931 is a non-binding House of Representatives resolution that expresses support for designating December 4, 2025 as National Scam Prevention Day. It cites substantial scam losses in 2024 and notes that underreporting could mean much higher totals, framing the issue as a coordinated, cross-agency challenge.
The measure calls for a whole-of-government approach, partnerships with private industry, and educational campaigns to help identify and report scams.
The resolution does not impose new statutory duties or funding. Instead, it signals a policy priority—mobilizing federal agencies, the private sector, and nonprofits to raise awareness, share information, and improve reporting of scam activity.
By design, it aims to unify messaging and encourage collaborative action rather than enact enforcement or funding authorities.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution expresses support for designating December 4, 2025 as National Scam Prevention Day and signals intent for broad coordination and outreach.
Who It Affects
Consumers nationwide; federal agencies such as the FTC; financial institutions, telecom and tech platforms; and nonprofit organizations involved in consumer education and protection.
Why It Matters
It sets a national policy signal that scams are a cross-cutting risk requiring interagency cooperation and private-sector partnerships to raise awareness and improve reporting.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
This resolution is a formal expression of support for designating a national day focused on scam prevention. It anchors the issue in data about scam losses—highlighting 2024 figures and suggesting true losses may be even higher due to underreporting—and emphasizes the need for a coordinated response spanning government, private industry, and nonprofits.
The text frames the national day as a rallying point to promote education, awareness, and reporting mechanisms.
The bill does not create new laws or mandatory duties. Its purpose is to unify and elevate anti-scam efforts, encouraging collaboration among federal agencies (like the FTC), financial institutions, telecommunications and technology platforms, and academic and nonprofit actors.
By doing so, it seeks to make scam prevention a shared responsibility and a visible policy priority across sectors.Because the measure is non-binding, its impact depends on how agencies and partners implement coordinated outreach and education programs already under way. The focus is on signaling intent and coordinating actions rather than prescribing statutory mandates or allocating new resources.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill is a non-binding resolution expressing support for National Scam Prevention Day.
It cites 2024 scam losses of $16.6 billion and suggests true losses could reach $158.3 billion when underreporting is counted.
It calls for a coordinated, whole-of-government approach with private-sector partnerships and educational campaigns.
There are no new statutory duties or funding authorized by this resolution.
It notes international dimensions of scam networks and urges a comprehensive, cross-border response.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Findings on scam harms and international links
The resolution assembles a set of findings about the broader scope and impact of scams, including large financial losses reported domestically and the suggestion that the true scope is larger due to underreporting. It also points to international dimensions of scam networks, including alleged links to foreign actors and criminal enterprises, to frame the complexity and reach of scam operations.
Designation and purpose
The central purpose is to express support for recognizing December 4, 2025 as National Scam Prevention Day. This section establishes the symbolic and policy rationale for the designation, framing it as a vehicle to elevate awareness, public education, and cross-sector collaboration without creating enforceable duties.
Coordination and education emphasis
The text foregrounds a coordinated approach involving multiple stakeholders—federal agencies, private industry, and nonprofits—to promote awareness and reporting. It suggests partnerships and educational campaigns as practical mechanisms to improve scam identification and reporting, rather than mandating new legal obligations.
Nature of the resolution
As a resolution, HR931 does not authorize funding or impose regulatory duties. Its impact rests on policy signaling and the opportunity to galvanize cooperative actions across government and industry to address scam risk through information sharing, education, and outreach.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance 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 nationwide gain heightened awareness and more accessible reporting pathways for scams, reducing financial and psychological harm.
- The Federal Trade Commission and other federal agencies receive a clear policy cue to coordinate consumer-protection outreach and information sharing.
- Banks, payment processors, telecoms, and digital platforms participate in collaborative awareness campaigns and reporting efforts.
- Nonprofit and educational organizations focused on consumer protection and financial literacy gain support for outreach and program development.
- Law enforcement and regulatory bodies benefit from intensified, coordinated messaging that can improve reporting and case-building.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal agencies will expend time and resources to coordinate, craft materials, and publicize information.
- Private-sector partners may incur costs to develop, disseminate materials, and maintain reporting channels in collaboration with government partners.
- Nonprofit and educational organizations may absorb outreach program costs to execute campaigns and trainings.
- State and local governments may align local messaging and community outreach within existing budgets.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing the aspirational goal of mobilizing a broad, cross-sector anti-scam effort with the reality that a non-binding resolution cannot compel action or allocate resources.
The bill rests on symbolic action rather than statutory mandates, so its practical impact relies on voluntary coordination and existing program authorities. While it frames scam prevention as a national priority, the mechanism for converting that priority into measurable outcomes depends on interagency collaboration, private-sector participation, and nonprofit support—areas where resources, priorities, and timelines can diverge.
The numbers cited for scam losses come from reported data, with the caveat that underreporting significantly skews the true scale, raising questions about baseline metrics and evaluation.
A central tension is whether a national day designation by itself will meaningfully reduce scam activity or merely elevate awareness. Without new funding or legal duties, the resolution’s effectiveness hinges on how agencies and partners act on the call for coordination and education.
The international dimension referenced in the findings also invites questions about how cross-border cooperation will be implemented and funded in practice.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.