SB38 amends the federal code to criminalize false or misleading communications intended to trigger an emergency response and to create civil liability for the resulting expenses. It also adds a new definition of what counts as an emergency response, expanding the scope to cover federal, state, and certain private emergency responders.
The bill tightens the incentives around reporting hoaxes by attaching penalties and potential civil exposure to those who transmit false information.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends 18 U.S.C. 1038 to criminalize false or misleading communications with intent to trigger an emergency response and to authorize civil actions for resulting expenses. It also adds a new, broader definition of “emergency response.”
Who It Affects
Public safety agencies (police, fire, EMS), 911/PSAPs, and individuals or organizations that transmit false information via mail or interstate commerce.
Why It Matters
Deters swatting by imposing criminal and civil consequences and clarifies what counts as an emergency response, helping responders allocate resources more reliably.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB38 makes it a federal offense to send false or misleading information intended to trigger an emergency response. The core criminal provision punishes conduct when the information could reasonably lead to a response and involves conduct that would violate certain state or federal laws, with escalating penalties: fines and imprisonment up to 5 years for the basic offense, up to 20 years if serious bodily injury results, and up to life if death occurs.
The bill also introduces a civil action allowing any party whose emergency response is expended due to such conduct to recover those expenses. In addition, the act adds a new definition of “emergency response,” including deployments by federal or state public safety agencies as well as certain private not-for-profit rescue organizations.
The practical effect is to deter hoax calls and ensure that responders can seek compensation when a swatting-style incident occurs. SB38 thus targets the incentivization structure around false reports while expanding accountability to both criminal and civil contexts.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill criminalizes false or misleading information intended to cause an emergency response, with penalties up to 5 years in prison.
Serious bodily injury can bring up to 20 years of imprisonment, and death can bring up to life.
It creates a civil liability regime where parties incurring emergency-response expenses can sue the perpetrator.
The new law defines emergency response to include government and private fire/rescue entities, broadening the pool of responders protected.
False information transmitted via mail or interstate/foreign commerce can trigger both criminal penalties and civil liability.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Criminal penalties for false communications to trigger emergency responses
Section 2(a) replaces the old general provision with a modern formulation: whoever conducts communications with the intent to convey false or misleading information, and under circumstances where such information could reasonably cause a response that would violate specified criminal or regulatory provisions, or endanger public safety, shall be fined and/or imprisoned. The penalties scale with outcomes: up to five years for the standard offense, up to twenty years if serious bodily injury results, and up to life if death occurs. The mechanism ties intent and potential consequences to a tiered penalty structure, aligning the severity with harm.
Civil action for false communications
Section 2(b) creates a civil action allowing any party incurring expenses due to an emergency response to recover those costs from the sender of the false information. The civil liability mirrors the criminal triggers: it covers information likely to trigger an emergency response and that violates state or federal law or endangers health or safety. This establishes a parallel track of accountability beyond criminal sanctions, enabling cost recovery for responders and related agencies.
Definition of ‘emergency response’
Section 2(e) expands the term to include deployments by federal or state public safety agencies, evacuations or warnings issued to the public, and responses by fire or rescue services. It also incorporates participation by a private not-for-profit organization that provides fire or rescue functions. This broader definition ensures that hoaxes affecting any organized response infrastructure, including private responders, are subject to the statute and civil actions.
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
- Public safety agencies (police, fire, EMS) gain a deterrent framework that preserves resources and improves response accuracy by reducing false alarms.
- 911 call centers and dispatch systems (PSAPs) benefit from clearer liability rules and potential cost recovery for unnecessary dispatches.
- Federal and state prosecutors gain additional tools to pursue hoaxers and to coordinate criminal and civil enforcement.
- Private, not-for-profit rescue organizations are covered by the new definition of emergency response, reducing the risk of being financially overwhelmed by hoax responses.
- Communities and individuals in high-swatting areas benefit from more reliable emergency responses and reduced disruption.
Who Bears the Cost
- Individuals or organizations that knowingly transmit false information face criminal penalties and civil liability, creating direct costs for those who hoax emergency responses.
- Emergency response agencies bear investigation and enforcement costs to pursue criminal and civil remedies.
- Courts incur time and resources adjudicating criminal charges and civil actions arising from hoax incidents.
- Defendants in civil actions face potential reimbursement of emergency-response expenses, which could be substantial in high-cost responses.
- Public safety systems may see increased compliance costs related to reporting and documentation to support civil actions.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between deterring dangerous hoaxes and avoiding over-criminalization of ambiguous or accidental communications. On one hand, strict penalties and broad civil remedies deter swatting; on the other hand, the thresholds of intent, belief, and the scope of “emergency response” risk chilling legitimate reporting and over-enforcement if not carefully bounded.
The bill introduces a robust framework to deter swatting by pairing criminal penalties with civil liability and by expanding the set of responders considered when measuring an ‘emergency response.’ While this strengthens deterrence and accountability, it also raises questions about the exact boundaries of “intent” and the circumstances under which information should trigger liability. The inclusion of private not-for-profit rescue groups in the emergency-response definition broadens scope and could have implications for how smaller agencies allocate resources or pursue legal remedies.
The reliance on the phrase “may reasonably be believed” attaches a subjective standard to the criminal trigger, which could create enforcement discretion that may vary by jurisdiction.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.