HB 2071
In CommitteeHouse
Online dating/excise tax
Generating resources to combat domestic violence by imposing an excise tax on owners of online dating applications.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill creates a new $1-per-month excise tax on owners of online dating apps that have Washington users, with the goal of raising funds for domestic violence services. The tax is based on the number of Washington residents who use the app (free or paid) each month, and revenue goes to a dedicated state account supporting domestic violence programs.
- Imposes a $1-per-resident-user monthly excise tax on owners of online dating apps that have Washington users.
- Defines 'online dating application' broadly to include websites or apps used primarily for romantic or social matching, regardless of user payment status.
- Requires owners to report the number of Washington resident users each month, and maintain records to support those reports.
- Creates the domestic violence services account in the state treasury, with all tax revenue dedicated to funding domestic violence intervention, treatment, and transfers to the crime victim and witness assistance account.
- Sets rules for tax collection, filing, and recordkeeping, modeled after existing state excise tax administration (Chapter 82.32 RCW).
Who is affected
- Online dating application owners — Online dating app owners (businesses) with 50% or more ownership of apps that have Washington users must register, report user counts, and pay a $1-per-user monthly tax.
- Washington residents who use online dating apps — Washington residents who use online dating apps may see higher app costs if owners pass the tax on to users through higher fees or subscription prices.
- Victims and survivors of domestic violence — Survivors and potential survivors of domestic violence may benefit from increased funding for domestic violence services, including intervention and treatment programs.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The tax is dedicated to funding domestic violence services—including crisis response, shelter, legal advocacy, and treatment—which directly benefits survivors and at-risk individuals, especially those with limited access to private resources; $12–$15M annually is a meaningful increase to a chronically underfunded sector.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 4By targeting a high-margin, non-essential digital service used by a subset of Washingtonians, the tax raises revenue with minimal economic distortion while addressing a critical public safety need—domestic violence—where state funding falls far short of demand.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2) and Sec. 4The $1/month tax is relatively low in absolute terms and unlikely to significantly alter user behavior or app usage patterns, making it a stable, predictable revenue stream that avoids heavy reliance on volatile income or sales taxes.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)The 24-month abandonment rule ensures only active users are taxed, reducing the burden on dormant accounts and improving fairness—though it also adds administrative complexity, the net effect is a more equitable and politically sustainable tax base.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)The bill creates a ring-fenced revenue stream, preventing future budget cuts from diverting domestic violence funds—this enhances program stability and long-term planning for service providers.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(1) and Sec. 4
Potential Concerns (5)
Online dating app owners—especially large, out-of-state tech firms—will face new compliance and administrative costs (e.g., user counting, recordkeeping, monthly filings), which may be passed on to users or absorbed as reduced profitability; however, given the flat $1/user rate and the scale of major platforms, the per-user cost is low and unlikely to drive business exit or significant job loss.
Business & EmploymentLean industryRef: Sec. 2(2)The tax may incentivize app owners to reduce Washington user counts—e.g., by steering users to non-Washington domains or deactivating dormant accounts—to lower liability, potentially degrading service quality or access for Washington users.
Business & EmploymentIndustryRef: Sec. 2(2)Small or emerging dating platforms with thin margins may struggle with compliance burdens relative to their revenue, potentially limiting market entry or innovation—though the $1/user rate and 24-month abandonment rule mitigate this risk for most.
Business & EmploymentLean industryRef: Sec. 2(2) and Sec. 2(3)If app owners pass the tax through to users via higher subscription or feature fees, Washington residents—particularly low- and middle-income users—may face modest but regressive cost increases, especially if they use multiple dating apps.
FinancialLean industryRef: Sec. 2(2)The bill does not require local governments to administer or enforce the tax, so there is no added fiscal burden on counties or municipalities; however, it also provides no new funding to local service providers beyond state-level transfers to domestic violence programs.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 2(3)
Who Is Most Affected
Survivors and at-risk individuals benefit significantly: increased funding expands access to emergency shelter, legal aid, counseling, and prevention programs—services currently overwhelmed and under-resourced across the state.
Large, out-of-state tech platforms (e.g., Match Group, Bumble, Tinder owners) will absorb modest compliance costs and may pass a fraction of the tax to users; however, their scale and profitability mean the per-user cost is negligible relative to revenue, and they face no existential risk.
Low- and middle-income Washington users who use dating apps may see small fee increases, but the $1/user tax is unlikely to deter usage or cause major financial hardship; the public safety benefits likely outweigh this minor cost.
State and local social service agencies will benefit from increased capacity to serve survivors, but the bill does not directly fund staffing or infrastructure—only programmatic services—so impact depends on how funds are allocated and distributed.
Small dating platforms or niche apps may face disproportionate compliance costs relative to revenue, potentially reducing innovation or market diversity—but the $1/user cap and abandonment rule limit this risk.