Online romance scams target users of dating platforms by siphoning substantial sums of money and inflicting meaningful psychological distress. Those affected frequently blame themselves for the losses and also face blame from others. The focus of the article is to evaluate whether victims bear some responsibility for the outcomes alongside the scammers. Three particularly salient scenarios are identified: (i) scams that involve numerous preliminary meetings and an even greater number of unsuccessful money transfers within a single scheme; (ii) individuals who endure multiple episodes of scam victimization; and (iii) situations in which authorities warn that a person is presently a scam target, yet the person proceeds to pay. The inquiry asks how responsibility should be allocated in these contexts and what explains the persistence of losses despite warnings and repeated exposure to risk. The argument advanced is that responsibility can sometimes be shared, though the financial harm inflicted can be disproportionate to the level of imprudence displayed. In this setting, victims may violate epistemic norms, but the violations occur in ways that are distinctive to the emotional dynamics of romantic attachment. The analysis thus links moral responsibility with epistemic vulnerability, highlighting how trust, affection, and the structure of online courtship shape both belief and accountability in scam scenarios. The discussion seeks to clarify when pity or blame is warranted and how the irrationalities tied to love can influence judgments about prudence and fault. Methodologically, the work integrates qualitative psychological research focusing on scam victims with analytic philosophy to examine the boundaries between rational assessment, vulnerability, and responsibility in online dating fraud. By bringing together these two modes of inquiry, the study aims to illuminate how victims navigate complicated questions of ownership over losses, the role of credibility and deception in intimate contexts, and the way normative expectations surrounding truth-telling and trust interact with experiences of being targeted by scams. The research was supported by Grant EP/N028112/1 from the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.