In 2026, scam exposure is no longer the most important story. Financial loss is.
Last year’s report was defined by volume: 56% of respondents encountered scam attempts at least monthly, with younger adults disproportionately affected. Scam activity was persistently high, and digital fluency didn’t translate into cyber resilience.
That baseline hasn’t changed. More than half (56%) still encounter scam attempts monthly, and over a third (36%) face them weekly. At first glance, the landscape appears stable. But the story has evolved.
A third of consumers (33%) believe scam attempts increased compared to the previous year, even though measured frequency hasn’t drastically shifted for most age groups. This perception gap suggests that the experience of scams may be intensifying — even if frequency remains stable. But stable frequency doesn’t mean stable impact.
What stands out this year isn’t the number of scams, but how effectively cyber criminals are turning attempts into real financial harm. In this chapter, we examine what this evolution means for consumers and the digital service providers they trust.
On This Page
Scam exposure remains prevalent across surveyed markets, but intensity varies. In the United States, nearly half of consumers (48%) encounter scam attempts weekly, and 69% report monthly exposure — the highest levels recorded.
Email remains the most common channel for scam attempts globally (53%), yet nearly half (47%) of exposure occurs elsewhere, revealing a fragmented threat surface.
The most common scam attempts in 2026 aim to get money from victims directly. Fake invoice or debt scams (20%), investment scams (19%), and banking or payment scams (11%) now dominate the landscape — signaling a shift toward faster, higher-yield returns.
Scam exposure is widespread — but it’s also converting. While 84% of global respondents encountered scam attempts last year, nearly a quarter (23%) of those exposed fell victim. That equates to almost one in five consumers (19%) overall.
Every fifth scam victim falls for an investment scam (20%), making it the most successful scam model overall. Banking or payment scams (14%) and fake invoice or debt scams (14%) follow closely.
The financial impact of scams surged over the past year. While 22% of victims reported losing money in 2025, that figure has more than doubled to 52% in 2026.
Consumer concern about future scams remains high, with 51% believing they are likely to fall victim — virtually unchanged from 2025 (50%).
The findings across this report signal a structural shift. Scam exposure is still high, but financial harm is escalating — more than half of victims now lose money. At the same time, demand for protection is strong across markets.
Scam Exposure is Widespread — But Uneven
Scam exposure remains prevalent across surveyed markets, but intensity varies. In the United States, nearly half of consumers (48%) encounter scam attempts weekly, and 69% report monthly exposure — the highest levels recorded. At the other end of the spectrum, Germany reports the lowest exposure (27% weekly, 39% monthly), underscoring substantial variation in how consumers experience scam activity across markets.
Age introduces a second layer of variation. Scam exposure declines steadily with age, with 42% of 18–24-year-olds encountering scams weekly and 65% monthly, compared to 31% weekly and 46% monthly among those aged 65–74. The most digitally active consumers are also the most frequently targeted, concentrating risk among younger generations.
Together, these patterns show that scam exposure isn’t evenly distributed. It clusters by market and by age, highlighting where protection is most urgently needed.
Scam Exposure is Multi-Channel, Not Just Email
Email remains the most common channel for scam attempts globally (53%), yet nearly half (47%) of exposure occurs elsewhere, revealing a fragmented threat surface.
Channel distribution reflects generational behavior. Among 18–24-year-olds, exposure is spread across email (37%), SMS (13%), online advertising (13%), and social media (13%). In contrast, 65–74-year-olds face a more concentrated threat environment, with email accounting for 60% of attempts and phone calls the second most common channel (11%).
Country differences further show this divergence. In Vietnam, only 28% of scam exposure occurs via email, with significant activity across social media (20%) and other mobile channels. In Japan, email dominates at 64%, with far lower proportions elsewhere.
Across age groups and markets, scam delivery mirrors digital behavior and ecosystem dynamics. As communication and commerce diversify, so do criminal entry points — making effective protection inherently multi-channel.
Scams Are Optimizing for Higher-Value Returns
The most common scam attempts in 2026 aim to get money from victims directly. Fake invoice or debt, investment, banking, and payment scams now represent 50% of attempts — signaling a shift toward faster, higher-yield returns.
Year-over-year changes reinforce the evolution of the scam economy. Fake invoice scams have more than tripled since 2025 (6% to 20%), while banking and payment scams have more than doubled (5% to 11%). Investment scams have also increased, rising from 14% to 19%.
Meanwhile, shopping scams have fallen sharply (16% to 6%), suggesting either a shift away from consumer purchase-based scam models or stronger protections that prevent fake shops from reaching victims. The pattern points to a growing emphasis on scams that prompt victims to send money directly, rather than those disguised as online purchases.
Scam Exposure is Translating into Real Victimization
Scam exposure is widespread — but it’s also converting. While 84% of global respondents encountered scam attempts last year, nearly a quarter (23%) of those exposed fell victim. That equates to almost one in five consumers (19%) overall.
Victimization varies significantly across markets. In Vietnam, 43% of respondents reported falling victim to a scam — nearly four times higher than Japan (9%), the lowest recorded rate. Sweden (28%) also stands out, while most other markets cluster between 14% and 18%. This tells us scam risk isn’t uniform; it reflects differences in digital environments.
Age is also a defining factor. Younger adults are far more likely to report having fallen victim to a scam, with 38% of 18–24-year-olds affected compared to just 8% of those aged 65–74 — nearly five times higher for Gen Z. Victimization declines steadily with age, reinforcing how higher digital activity and multi-channel exposure increase risk.
However, demographic factors tell only part of the story. Nearly as many people who believe they can recognize scams fall victim (19%) as those who admit they cannot (21%). In the scam economy, confidence alone is not a defense.
Higher-Value Scams Are the Most Successful
Every fifth scam victim falls for an investment scam (20%), making it the most successful scam model overall. Banking or payment scams (14%) and fake invoice or debt scams (14%) follow closely. These leading victim categories mirror the most common scam attempts — but their effectiveness differs.
Investment scams remain the most reliable high-yield model, while banking or payment scams sustain steady conversion by exploiting trust in familiar institutions.
Some scams, however, convert at disproportionately high rates. Shopping scams account for 12% of victims despite representing just 6% of attempts, suggesting elevated effectiveness when consumers are primed to transact. Extortion and employment scams also outperform their volume, leveraging urgency and financial stress to increase compliance.
Risk varies by country as well. Investment scams dominate in the UK (30%) and Vietnam (29%), banking and payment scams lead in France (27%) and the United States (22%), while fake invoice and debt scams top the list in Sweden (22%). This tells us that across scam types and markets, scale matters less than context, efficiency, and trust.
More Than Half of Scam Victims Now Lose Money
The financial impact of scams surged over the past year. While 22% of victims reported losing money in 2025, that figure has more than doubled to 52% in 2026.
More than half of victims report money lost to scams, far exceeding other consequences such as lost time or personal information (both 13%), stress (8%), loss of data (6%), and reputational damage (1%). Only 6% said the experience had no significant impact.
Rates of financial loss vary across markets. In the UK, 71% of scam victims reported losing money, followed by Vietnam (63%) and the United States (57%). France has the lowest rate (39%), yet nearly four in ten victims still experienced financial harm.
Age reveals a different pattern. Although younger adults fall victim more often, older adults are more likely to lose money once targeted. Among victims aged 65–74, 60% reported financial loss — the highest of any age group. This creates a dual risk dynamic: younger consumers are exposed to a higher volume of scams, while older consumers face greater risk of financial loss.
Financial risk isn’t concentrated in a single demographic or market. Exposure, victimization, and monetary impact are distributed differently, amplifying the overall financial burden of scams.
Demand for Scam Protection Remains Strong
Consumer concern about future scams remains high, with 51% believing they are likely to fall victim — virtually unchanged from 2025 (50%).
Willingness to pay for scam protection is equally strong: 51% of global consumers say they would pay for protection, consistent with last year’s figure (50%).
Yet demand varies significantly across markets. In Vietnam, 83% of consumers are willing to pay for protection — the highest recorded level — despite only 54% believing they are likely to fall victim. In contrast, Japan reports the lowest willingness (27%), even though 61% of consumers believe they are likely to fall victim. Finnish consumers are the least concerned about future risk (26%), but almost half (46%) are still willing to pay for protection.
These differences may reflect cultural factors that shape how consumers respond to cyber risks. Research shows that individual security behaviors are influenced by broader contexts such as digital maturity, institutional trust, and cyber security culture.
Age reveals a clear alignment between exposure and demand. Younger adults show the highest willingness to pay, with 63% of 18–24-year-olds and 62% of 25–34-year-olds expressing interest — an increase from last year. Older adults are less willing, despite being more likely to experience financial loss once victimized.
Strategic Priorities for Digital Service Providers
The findings across this report signal a structural shift. Scam exposure is still high, but financial harm is escalating — more than half of victims now lose money. At the same time, demand for protection is strong across markets. Over half of consumers are willing to pay for scam protection, particularly younger, digitally active users.
The commercial implications of this shift are significant: 93% of consumers say it’s important that their telecommunications provider offers cyber security, 82% say security influences provider choice, and 69% would switch providers based on their security offering. Scam protection is no longer an add-on; it’s a competitive differentiator.
Our 2026 findings define five strategic priorities crucial for digital service providers:
1. Cover the full digital journey
Scam exposure spans email, SMS, social media, mobile apps, and online advertising. Protection must extend across all digital touchpoints customers use every day.
2. Act in real time, not retrospectively
Financial harm occurs at the end of the scam journey, but engagement begins upstream in messaging channels. Providers must detect and disrupt scams as they happen, before they escalate.
3. Segment by risk profile
Younger consumers face higher exposure, while older consumers experience greater financial loss. Protection strategies should differentiate between high-exposure segments and those at greater risk of financial harm.
4. Make protection a core service, not an add-on
As scams become more targeted and financially damaging, security can't be treated as optional. It should be delivered as a baseline expectation, seamlessly integrated into the customer experience.
5. Lead with trusted relationships
Consumers look to their digital service providers for protection. Position security as a natural extension of that existing trust — strengthening engagement, loyalty, and long-term value.
Methodology
Consumer data was gathered via an online F‑Secure Consumer Market Survey conducted in January 2026. While self-reported data reflects individual perception, results were validated through sample balancing to ensure demographic consistency across countries.
The survey captured responses from 10,000 consumers across ten countries, with 1,000 participants per country to ensure balanced geographic representation. Respondents ranged in age from 18 to 74, allowing for generational comparison in digital habits, and included a 51/49 gender split to reflect real-world diversity.
