This post is the first in a series.
This post summarizes recent BPI research that uses a new module of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) Making Ends Meet Survey (MEMS) to study fraud and scams from the consumer perspective.[1] Specifically, it focuses on the extent to which consumers have experienced fraud, the types of fraud they encountered, their financial exposure and their propensity to report this experience.
The research indicates that about 78 million adults experienced fraud or a scam during 2024. These encounters frequently entailed types of fraud and scams in which consumers are targeted online or through the phone, including online shopping (23.1 million), phishing (15.6 million), impostor (14.6 million) or social media (11.1 million).
About $67.1 billion was exposed to fraud or a scam, i.e., lost prior to any recoveries, and roughly 20 to 30 percent of exposed dollars were recovered. Moreover, fraud and scams involving non-card bank products, like cashiers’ checks or wire transfers, were more financially devastating.
Just over half of victims (53 percent) reported the most recent fraud or scam to their credit card company or financial institution, and nearly 8 in 10 reporting to those were helped. In contrast, only 4 percent reported their most recent incident to a federal agency, and fewer than 1 in 3 of those were helped. Even among incidents involving a non-card bank product, which can be more difficult to resolve for numerous reasons, consumers were more likely to report to a financial institution and to receive assistance.
Data: The Making Ends Meet Survey
Surveys have long been used to study fraud and scams because administrative data, often drawn from consumer complaints, have important limitations. Complaint data can be inaccurate, understate the prevalence of fraud, fail to fully represent those who experience it and provide limited information about the consumers who report the fraud or scam. Surveys offer a valuable complement by measuring the incidence of fraud and scams more accurately, capturing emerging fraud types more flexibly and collecting richer information about affected consumers.
The MEMS is a nationally representative survey of adults with a credit record.[2] The analysis in the research summarized in this blog uses Wave 6 of MEMS, which was administered in the first quarter of 2025. Wave 6 includes a newly expanded module on fraud and scams. Respondents are asked systematically about different types of fraud, the financial products involved, their dollar exposures, recovery outcomes, to whom they reported the fraud and whether they were helped. This enables a more unified analysis of three key dimensions of fraud and scams: incidence, financial exposure and reporting.[3]
The Incidence and Types of Fraud and Scams
Fraud and scams are both widespread and increasing. As shown in Figure 1, approximately 29 percent of U.S. adults – equivalent to about 78 million individuals –report experiencing a fraud or scam at least once in the previous 12 months. This indicates a substantial increase relative to pre-pandemic survey-based estimates and is in line with more contemporaneous ones.[4] This higher incidence observed in the MEMS data, relative to the pre-pandemic period, is consistent with the idea that broader structural changes in the economy, particularly the expansion of digital commerce and communication, effectuated new pathways of fraud.[5]
Figure 1: Incidence and Types of Financial Fraud and Scams
A key part of the research, which leverages an advantage of survey data, is its accounting of different types of fraud and scams. This includes more traditional types, like credit card fraud or identity theft, and more emerging types, like social media or phishing scams. These emerging types of fraud and scams are of particular concern to regulators and the financial industry. This is because they may be more difficult to track and resolve, even as expansion of the digital economy has arguably made them more effective. [6]
As shown in Figure 1, the most common form of fraud or scam is perpetrated through a credit or debit card. About 64 percent of victims, or 50.3 million adults, experienced it. However, the figure also indicates that many consumers experienced types of fraud or scams more associated with digital channels, consistent with consumers’ greater use of such channels. This includes online shopping scams (23 million), phishing scams (16 million), impostor scams (15 million) and social media scams (11 million).[7]
Financial Exposures and Loss Distribution
The research also lends insight into financial exposure and loss for individuals experiencing fraud or a scam. The MEMS is methodical and specific on the measurement of losses. Respondents are first asked to think about their most recent experience of fraud or a scam, and which financial product was involved. They are then asked how much was lost in that experience before any recovery, i.e., their exposure. Finally, respondents are asked what portion this exposure was recovered. This sequence first specifies the incident related to loss and the financial products involved. It then captures consumers’ exposure and their assessment of its ultimate financial resolution.
The top left panel of Figure 2 plots the distribution of exposures, before recovery, for victims’ most recent fraud or scam experience. On average, the data indicate exposure before recovery of $869. However, this distribution is highly skewed. A substantial minority lost little or no money; half of exposures amounted to less than $65. However, 25 percent suffered an exposure of $500 or more, and 10 percent suffered an exposure of $2,000 or more.[8] On aggregate, the data suggests total exposure before recovery of $67.1 billion.
The top right panel of Figure 2 plots recoveries. Specifically, the MEMS asks whether all, most, a part, or none of the exposed amount was recovered. It also gives respondents a “no loss” option. [9] The dark (purple) bars show the proportion of people in each recovery category, and the light (orange) bars show the proportion of dollars. In about 30 percent of incidents, the exposure was fully recovered, whereas in an additional 33 percent of incidents there was no loss. In about 12 percent of incidents, those exposed suffered a loss that was mostly or partially recovered. For a quarter of victims, none of the exposure was recovered.
Figure 2: Dollars Exposed and Recoveries for Financial Fraud and Scams
A much greater proportion of exposed dollars, about $48.2 billion, were never recovered. About 20 percent of exposed dollars, or $13.4 billion, were fully recovered. The stark difference in recovery rates when comparing incidents and dollars is consistent with the skewed exposure distribution shown in the top left panel of the figure. In many cases, like those involving a credit or debit card, small or even moderate amounts are recovered. For more serious instances with high exposure that might involve checks or wire transfers, the path to recovery is often murky and practically much more complex.
To better understand this, the research analyzes exposures and recoveries separately by financial product. The bottom left panel of Figure 2 shows average exposures for each of three product categories: (1) a credit or debit card, (2) a non-card bank product, (3) another unspecified product and no product in either the previous categories.[10] The average exposure for incidents involving a non-card bank product is $1,961. This is more than twice the amount for incidents involving a credit or debit card ($706) or some other financial product ($708).
The bottom right panel of Figure 2 plots the distribution of dollar recoveries by product category. When a card product was involved, about 54 percent of exposed dollars are fully recovered. In cases where a card product is not involved, recoveries drop to less than 10 percent. As the data indicates, incidents involving non-card financial products, which may more often require consumer authorization to access, are on average more financially devastating.
Reporting Behavior and Institutional Channels
The extent to which victims report fraud or scams affects measurement and thereby policy response. The MEMS asks consumers about whether and to whom they reported their most recent fraud or scam experience. It also asks if they feel they were helped by the institution to which they reported.
The data indicates that just over half of fraud victims (57 percent) report their most recent incident. Moreover, among those who report, there is a clear pattern in reporting channels. As shown in the top Panel of Figure 3, consumers most often report fraud to their financial institution (49 percent) or their credit card company (30 percent). They report much less frequently to law enforcement (7 percent) or federal agencies (4 percent). This distribution reflects both institutional design and consumer incentives. Financial institutions are directly involved in transactions and often provide the most immediate avenue for resolution. In contrast, reporting to regulatory agencies is typically slower, more uncertain and less directly tied to individual compensation.
The top panel of Figure 3 shows that nearly 8 of 10 victims who reported their most recent fraud or scam to a financial institution or credit card company were helped. In contrast, fewer than 1 of 3 victims who reported to a federal agency or law enforcement were helped. As aforementioned, this pattern is consistent with the role these respective institutions play in resolving disputes and, where consistent with applicable law and internal policies, reimbursing losses.
Figure 3: Consumer Reporting of Financial Fraud and Scams
Like exposures and recoveries, reporting patterns also differ by the type of financial product involved. This is plotted in the bottom panel of Figure 3. More than 6 in 10 victims of fraud or a scam involving a credit or debit card report to a credit card company or financial institution (left), and about 83 percent of those people received help. Fewer victims report to a credit card company or financial institution when fraud or a scam involves non-card bank product (middle), with about 40 percent receiving help. In such cases, a higher share report to a federal regulator, though still fewer than 1 in 3 receive help.
These reporting patterns support the notion that financial institutions provide help in many cases when fraud or a scam occurs. Even when the incident involves a non-card bank product, like a check or wire transfer, consumers are more likely to report to a financial institution and to be helped. This is important to underscore because cases involving these products may be more complicated to resolve for numerous reasons.
Linking Incidence, Exposure and Reporting
Taken together, the research tells a coherent story of the modern fraud and scam landscape. First, it highlights that frauds and scams are widespread and increasing, affecting nearly 1 in 3 adults during 2024. It further makes the case that higher incidence is consistent with greater use of digital channels, which have enabled and effectuated new forms of fraud and scams.
Second, it shows that financial exposure is substantial and concentrated. While many incidents involve some loss, a minority of cases generate most of the financial harm. Moreover, fraud or a scam involving a non-card bank product is on average more financially devastating. This is both because such incidents cause greater financial exposure, and, since they may be more complicated to resolve, result in fewer recoveries.
Finally, the research shows that reporting is incomplete and skewed toward financial institutions, rather than federal agencies or law enforcement. It also shows that consumers who report to a financial institution are more likely to be assisted than those who report to a federal agency or local law enforcement. These patterns indicate a gap in the visibility of the fraud landscape that may complicate regulators’ efforts to monitor and respond to fraud, perhaps requiring additional data collection efforts and coordination.
[1] This research, titled Frauds and Scams: A Post-Pandemic Consumer Perspective can be found here: Frauds and Scams: A Post-Pandemic Consumer Perspective by Daniel Grodzicki :: SSRN.
[2] According to a 2025 CFPB study, about 98% of U.S. adults had a credit record in 2020. The study can be found at Report – Technical correction and update to the CFPB’s credit invisibles estimate_FINAL.
[3] Complete information on the MEMS can be found here.
[4] For example, prior work using Federal Trade Commission survey data found that roughly 16 percent of adults experienced fraud in 2017. See the most recently updated FTC survey study here: Mass-Market Consumer Fraud in the United States: A 2017 Update. See also an appendix to the Federal Reserve’s most recent Survey of Household Economics and Decision-making (SHED), which can be found here: Federal Reserve Board Publication.
[5] It is important to caution that these surveys contain some differences. The MEMS survey’s primary objective is to understand the financial well-being of U.S. adults. The FTC survey is designed to assess fraud. This contextual difference can elicit different responses from consumers.
[6] According to a recent Pew research study, 21 percent of adults have lost money because of an online scam or attack. The study can be found here: Online Scams and Attacks in America Today | Pew Research Center. Moreover, a recent IMF working paper by Khiaonarong and Zheng (IMP WP 26/62 March, 2026) which details trends in cyber fraud also notes a near tripling of cyber events in finance and insurance between 2021 and 2024, which it ties to the rise in virtual living during the pandemic years. It can be found here: The Rise of Cyber Events and Digital Fraud in the Financial Sector, WP/26/62, March 2026
[7] Surveyed individuals are asked whether they experienced each type of fraud of scam in the previous 12 months, to which they indicate yes or no for each type. They can indicate yes for more than one type.
[8] This exposure constitutes a substantial burden on consumers. According to Federal Reserve data from 2024, 37 percent of adults said they would have to borrow or sell something they owned to cover a $400 unexpected expense. For details, see the Economic Wellbeing of US Households in 2024 report here: Federal Reserve Board Publication.
[9] The inclusion of a no loss column seems at odds with the initial question, which posits that money was initially lost – though potentially later recovered. Some respondents who were fully repaid may have answered this question as no loss. It may be reasonable to interpret the no loss response as a small loss up front or an eventual full recovery.
[10] Note that respondents could provide more than one product. These categories reflect this fact in their logic as follows. First, if a debit or credit card was used, then the incident is categorized as card. Second, if no card was used and a non-bank product was used, it is categorized non-bank product. Third, if neither card nor non-bank product was used then it is categorized as other.
