New York Senate Bill S09097

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/3/26
• Refer: 2/3/26

Caption

Relates to bans from online dating services based on content; requires retention of records where necessary to maintain enforcement of fraud bans or content bans; makes related provisions.

Summary

This bill amends New York’s General Business Law section 394-c, which governs social referral services and online dating services. It expands the definition of a “banned member” to include not only users banned for fraud, but also users subject to a new “content ban.” A content ban is defined as a removal from an online dating service based on conduct or content that the service believes violates law, breaches its terms or policies, or creates a significant risk of harm to users. The bill also changes how long dating services may keep user information after a contract ends. In general, personal or private information must be returned or deleted within 30 days, but services may retain limited information when needed to enforce a fraud ban or content ban. The retained material must be limited to what was collected to create the account and profile, may be used only to identify the purchaser for ban enforcement, and contract and customer service records may be kept for up to six years or the applicable statute of limitations period, whichever is longer. The bill also updates disclosure rules for members who interacted with banned members, narrowing one existing notice provision to banned members subject to a fraud ban. The bill’s impact is to give online dating services clearer authority to preserve certain records and enforce bans against users removed for harmful content or policy violations, while still imposing strict limits on retention and use of personal data. It affects dating platforms operating in New York, their recordkeeping and deletion practices, and the rights of users whose accounts are closed or banned. It also continues to regulate how services notify members who may have interacted with banned accounts. The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text and available history is generally supportive of stronger platform safety and enforcement tools. The bill was reported favorably from committee, suggesting at least committee-level approval of the approach. No vote record or transcript is available here, so there is no evidence of formal opposition in the provided materials. The main point of contention is likely the balance between user safety and privacy. Supporters would view the content-ban retention rules as necessary to prevent repeat abuse, harassment, or other harmful conduct on dating platforms. Critics could be concerned that the “content ban” standard is broad and gives services significant discretion to decide what conduct or content justifies a ban, while also allowing retention of user data beyond the normal deletion period for enforcement purposes.

Impact

The bill amends General Business Law § 394-c to add a new definition of “content ban,” expand the definition of “banned member,” and revise record-retention and disclosure requirements for social referral services and online dating services. It requires deletion or return of personal information within 30 days after services end, except where retention is required by law, court order, or to enforce fraud or content bans, and it limits the use of retained data to ban enforcement. It also adjusts the notice requirement for members who previously received messages from banned users, tying that disclosure provision to fraud bans.

Sentiment

The available context suggests a generally favorable sentiment toward the bill, with the measure reported favorably from the Senate committee on Internet and Technology. The bill appears aimed at improving user safety and platform accountability on online dating services, and there is no recorded vote or transcript indicating organized opposition in the materials provided. Overall, the tone is consistent with support for giving platforms clearer tools to address harmful users while preserving privacy limits.

Contention

The likely controversy centers on the breadth of the new “content ban” authority and the privacy implications of allowing services to retain user records for enforcement. Supporters are likely to emphasize protection from harassment, fraud, and dangerous conduct on dating platforms. Potential critics may argue that the standard is subjective because it relies on the service’s judgment that a user violated law, terms, or posed a significant risk of harm, and that the retention exception could be used too broadly or inconsistently.