Sponsors (3)
Want me to put this bill in plain English?
This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Makes it illegal and gives victims civil remedies when a person intentionally sends false or misleading information that a reasonable person could believe and that either (a) alleges or predicts activity that would violate certain serious criminal laws or covered federal provisions, or (b) is sent by mail or interstate/foreign commerce in a way that could reasonably be expected to cause an emergency response and indicates criminal conduct or danger to public health or safety. Adds a statutory definition of “emergency response,” listing types of deployments, evacuation guidance, and official warnings that count for the law.
Amends 18 U.S.C. 1038(a)(1)(A): Prohibits anyone who, with intent to convey false or misleading information, does so under circumstances where the information may reasonably be believed and the information indicates that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place that would constitute a violation of one of the listed provisions of federal law (chapters 2, 10, 11B, 39, 40, 44, 111, or 113B of title 18; section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284); or specified sections of title 49).
Amends 18 U.S.C. 1038(a)(1)(B): Prohibits anyone who, with intent to convey false or misleading information, uses the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce under circumstances where the information may reasonably be expected to cause an emergency response and the information indicates conduct that constitutes a crime under State or Federal law or endangers public health or safety or the health or safety of any person.
Replaces 18 U.S.C. 1038(b) (Civil action) to allow a civil action against a person who, with intent to convey false or misleading information, does so under circumstances where the information may reasonably be believed and indicates activity that would violate the listed chapters/sections (same list as in subsection (a)(1)(A)).
Replaces 18 U.S.C. 1038(b) (Civil action) to allow a civil action against a person who, with intent to convey false or misleading information, uses the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce under circumstances where the information may reasonably be expected to cause an emergency response and the information indicates conduct that constitutes a crime or endangers public health or safety (same as subsection (a)(1)(B), but providing a civil remedy).
Adds 18 U.S.C. 1038(e): Defines “emergency response” to mean any deployment of personnel or equipment, order or advice to evacuate, or issuance of a warning to the public or a threatened person, organization, or establishment, when done by an agency of the United States or a State charged with public safety functions (including agencies charged with detecting, preventing, or investigating crimes or with fire or rescue functions), or by a private not-for-profit organization that provides fire or rescue functions.
Who is affected and how:
Emergency communications centers, 9‑1‑1 professionals, and public safety telecommunicators: Likely to see fewer false-alarm incidents that consume time and resources; may also be party to investigations and civil litigation as affected entities. (They will be protected indirectly by reduced false reports but may also be callers/filers in civil claims.)
First responders and emergency personnel: Reduced diversion of personnel and resources to hoaxes or false threats; potential to participate in evidence and prosecutions when false reports lead to deployments.
Individuals who send false information (including by mail, phone, or online): Face new criminal exposure and potential civil liability when messages are intentional, reasonably believable, and allege serious criminality or prompt emergency responses. This increases legal risk for malicious actors and reckless communicators.
General public and communities: Potential public-safety benefit from fewer false alarms and more reliable emergency communications, but also a possible chilling effect if people fear legal consequences for mistaken or ambiguous reports.
Law enforcement, prosecutors, and courts: Increased caseload for investigating and litigating claims that require proof of intent and reasonable-belief standards; fact-intensive litigation likely about what a reasonable recipient would believe and whether an emergency response was likely.
Potential trade-offs and legal issues:
Constitutional concerns: Laws that penalize false statements can raise free speech challenges; outcomes will depend on how courts interpret intent, falsity, and public-harm thresholds.
Proof burdens: Prosecutors and civil plaintiffs must establish intentionality and the reasonable-belief standard, which may require complex factual records (communications, context, reach, and actual or likely responses).
Operational impact: Emergency agencies may see fewer wasted responses, but will also need protocols for documenting false-alarm incidents and cooperating with investigations to support enforcement or civil claims.
Expand sections to see detailed analysis
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced January 9, 2025 by Richard Lynn Scott · Last progress January 9, 2025
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate