About half of survey respondents experienced attempted payment fraud over the past two years. Of these, the largest number mentioned noticing purchases they did not make (45%), phishing attempts (36%) and card or card data theft (33%).
Significant numbers also highlighted more elaborate scams including fake online stores (27%), impersonation or social engineering (21%) and employment scams (20%).
While email, phone and text are the most common channels for these attempted frauds, a significant proportion of fraudsters use social media as a conduit.
When asked about the types of fraud that concern them most, about half of our respondents named card and card data theft (46%) and identity theft (44%). Far fewer respondents named impersonation and social engineering (15%), employment scams (13%) and romance scams (10%), despite these fraud types often leading to large financial losses and psychological harm.
Increasingly, says Henzel, bank staff need to be trained in how to ‘break the spell’ placed on customers by fraudsters – with victims often deceived into thinking that bank staff or systems have been corrupted.
What kind of payment fraud concerns you most?
(4 selections permitted)
Fill in your email address to read on and learn:
© Capco 2026, A Wipro Company
Back to Top
thank you
🔓
Additional content is now unlocked
June 2026
The new threat landscape, consumer attitudes & future-resilient defense strategies
US Payment Fraud Survey
Capco’s survey of 1,000 US consumers explores their experience of payment fraud, desired balance of security and convenience, fears about the deepfake threat, and other emerging issues.
Key findings include:
If consumers trust their payment institution to protect them
Security vs convenience – desired consumer balance
Worries about biometric authentication given AI technologies
Download PDF with full results and recommendations
Losses from payment fraud in the United States are increasing as fraud becomes more organized, sophisticated and automated. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reports a sharp rise in in reported fraud losses across the nation to $15.9 billion in 2025 – a quarter higher than in 2024.
The reported numbers underestimate the true size of the problem and the future threat, says Gregg Henzel, Managing Principal, US Financial Crime, Risk, Regulation and Finance: “Scammers are deploying large teams in centers around the world and will increasingly leverage AI to automate aspects of payment fraud and circumvent key defenses, while taking full advantage of industry innovations such as real-time payment rails, easy cross-border money transfer, cryptocurrency and stable coin.”
Keeping ahead in the fraud arms race will mean layering defensive strategies, sharing data and intelligence, aligning internal teams, selecting best-of-breed vendors, and embedding AI-powered analytics that draw on many different data dimensions to support near real-time decisions.
Gregg Henzel, Managing Principal
US Financial Crime, Risk, Regulation and Finance
Brand reputation
30%
Ease of user experience/ convenience
31%
Transaction speed and reliability
34%
Accessibility (e.g. 24/7 support)
42%
Customer service quality and responsiveness
42%
Advanced fraud protection
50%
Security
63%
In Capco’s US survey, the most frequently cited ‘important factors’ for respondents when choosing institutions that offer payment services are security and advanced fraud protection – ranking well ahead of other compelling factors such as customer service quality, user experience and brand.
Which are the most important factors when choosing a financial institution that offers payment services? (Top 7 answers; 4 selections permitted)
Social media
41%
Text
44%
Phone
52%
Email
63%
Communication channels used for attempted fraud. (Multiple selections permitted)
Transfer payment you did not make
24%
Fake online stores/marketplaces
25%
Phishing
28%
Account takeover
35%
Purchase you did not make
40%
Identity theft
44%
Card or card data theft
46%
Deepfake or AI-enabled fraud
17%
Push payment fraud, e.g. getting you to transfer money
16%
Impersonation or social engineering
15%
Employment scam
13%
Money muling
11%
Romance scam
10%
Not concerned with payment fraud
4%
Other
1%
At first sight, consumers seem confident that their primary financial institution will protect them from payment fraud, with 53% ‘very confident’ of this, 37% ‘somewhat confident’, and 10% either not confident or expressing neutrality. However, this means nearly half (47%) of survey respondents did not feel able to tick the ‘very confident’ box.
“Preserving confidence in an institution’s ability and willingness to protect consumers from payment fraud will prove a key differentiator in the years ahead,” says Henzel.
One of the key strategic questions facing those rolling out anti-fraud measures concerns the balance between enhanced security and customer convenience. Many fraud prevention mechanisms introduce friction into the user experience – for example, 32% of our respondents find it frustrating or inconvenient to be sent security codes.
Respondents vary significantly in terms of the exact balance they want. The largest number (42%) described security as an absolute priority, while 32% opted for security first with decent levels of convenience, and 23% for an even balance.
Accommodating this diversity and preserving an attractive user experience may mean deploying more risk-based ‘step up’ defenses as well as enabling – and encouraging – customers to personalize security settings. Institutions must align user-friendly fraud prevention with well-defined enterprise fraud risk tolerances. However, Henzel says that “many banks still lack a clear vision for defining fraud tolerance, and how it and other dynamic variables can be used to inform their fraud prevention strategies.”
Insecure – we need different types of defenses
6%
Not entirely secure now
24%
Secure now – but under future threat
39%
Secure now and in the future – defenses will catch up
32%
Do you think voice biometrics and facial ID is secure, given advancing deep fake technology?
Many banks still lack a clear vision for defining fraud tolerance, and how it and other dynamic variables should inform their fraud prevention strategies.
Another key question is whether customers are aware of emerging data- and technology-driven fraud scenarios, and if they are being prepared by banks and other payment providers to identify and mitigate new threats.
Nearly all our respondents (89%) are concerned (42%) or very concerned (47%) that personal data now available online makes it easier to commit fraud against them. On this issue, younger cohorts are more concerned that older cohorts – perhaps because more of their life history and social and economic life is conducted or stored online.
47%
All respondents
How concerned are you that personal data available online could make it easier for someone to impersonate you or find answers to security questions?
age 25-35
age 65-75
42%
11%
The advances in deep fake technology and the threat this poses to certain kinds of biometric authentication has become a topic of public debate over the last year. Only 32% of our respondents think voice biometrics and facial ID is fully secure now and going forward, with 69% thinking it is either ‘insecure’ or ‘not entirely secure’ now – or under future threat.
Modern systems attempt to mitigate the risk of fakes with liveness detection and anti-spoofing controls. “The industry also needs to move even further towards well-coordinated, multi-layered defense in depth,” says Henzel, “with the idea that if one preventive mechanism fails then another is there to catch the ball.”
Convenience is my absolute priority
1%
Convenience first and decent levels of security
3%
Balance of security & convenience
23%
Security first and decent levels of convenience
32%
Security is my absolute priority
42%
When it comes to balancing security and convenience, which statement best captures your attitude?
Biometric authentication is not the only issue, with fraudsters likely to scale up their use of deepfake technologies to impersonate relatives, officials and business leaders, and to generate fake credentials and web sites.
While most of our respondents (62%) say their financial institution has offered them information or guidance about the deepfake threat and how to reduce the risk, 38% say they have not been informed or do not recall this outreach – rising to 53% in the case of those aged 55-65. Over the next few years, institutions will have to roll out better educational efforts, while modernizing fraud prevention across several dimensions.
Yes, I have been informed
26%
Has your financial institution provided you with any information or guidance about deepfake threats and how to reduce the associated risks?
No, I have not been informed
I don't recall
12%
62%
Key modernization efforts will include the sophisticated layering of defenses, leveraging cross-institution data, and deploying new AI technologies to rapidly analyze larger, more diverse streams of information.
While new AI-enabled defensive technologies may prove critical, technology is not enough. Improvements must be supported by enterprise-level initiatives, says Henzel, such as coordinating risk teams and their information streams; improving detection gap analyses; calculating customer and employee risk scores and clearly delineating fraud risk appetites and tolerances.
Defenses will need to be upgraded more quickly than in the past, implying the need for new AI-enabled transformation strategies. “Winning the payment fraud arms race will require better roadmaps, prioritization and coordination not just across internal teams and partner ecosystems,” says Henzel, “but also across the wider financial industry and other relevant industries such as telecommunications and social media.”
Download the in-depth PDF version of this report to access a full set of survey results, deep dives into five key fraud types, and recommendations on how to win the payment fraud arms race using layered defenses and the latest AI-enabled technologies, strategies and partnerships.
Full report offers:
4 infographics with full survey results
5 ‘deep dives’ into key fraud types: account takeover; authorized push payment (APP); payment card fraud; identity & synthetic fraud; and insider-driven fraud
Recommendations on how to win the payment fraud arms race
Download the Whitepaper
89% of respondents are concerned that online personal data could make impersonation easier or reveal answers to security questions.
69% worry that ‘deep fake’ technology means voice biometrics and facial ID are under future threat (39%), not entirely secure now (24%) or already insecure (6%).
Security (63%) and advanced fraud protection (50%) are the most frequently cited ‘important factors’ when choosing a financial institution offering payment services.
Not confident at all
1%
Less than confident
2%
Neutral
7%
Somewhat confident
37%
Very confident
53%
How confident are you that your primary financial institution will protect you from payment fraud?
© Capco 2026, A Wipro Company
■ Very concerned ■ Concerned ■ Not concerned
52%
37%
11%
32%
55%
13%
Gregg Henzel
Managing Principal, US Financial Crime, Risk, Regulation and Finance
“
“
“
Matthew Cohn
Partner & US Head of Banking & Payments
Our experts
Consumer awareness of deep-fake threat
