Fraud, Trust, and Authentication The Surveyed U.S. Consumer View

Banking relationships in the United States are increasingly shaped by a simple question: when fraud risk rises, does the institution protect the customer in a way that feels timely, relevant, and fair?

An exclusive survey of 1,005 surveyed U.S. adults suggests that fraud prevention is no longer just an operational control behind the scenes. It shapes how consumers assess their financial providers, how they respond after an incident, and how much intervention they will accept during everyday payments.

The survey was carried out in 2026. It formed part of a wider exclusive survey that gathered responses from 7,029 consumers across 7 countries, with approximately 1,000 respondents in each market. Other countries covered were the UK, Sweden, Brazil, India, Singapore, and Australia. This article focuses on responses from the U.S. sample.

Surveyed respondents see fraud as a broad, personal risk

Fraud concern is not abstract for surveyed respondents. It is close to home, often involving either the respondent or someone they know.

• Among respondents in the U.S., 58% have experienced card-details fraud directly or through someone close.
• Another 51% report the same reach for impersonation and support scams.

Taken together, these different forms of exposure show how fraud now cuts across card use, digital banking, credential theft, account takeover risk, scams, and payments.

This exposure is reflected in respondents’ level of concern, with 52% very or extremely concerned about fraudsters using their card details and 49% saying the same about account takeover.

For financial institutions, the significance is that consumer anxiety extends across more than one attack type. A customer may worry about stolen card data at checkout, unauthorized account access during digital banking, and social engineering during a bank transfer. As a result, treating those risks as separate operational silos can leave gaps in detection and response.

Scam risk challenges authentication alone

Authentication remains critical, but scam-induced payments create a harder problem. Authentication can help confirm who is taking an action. It does not, by itself, determine whether that person is being manipulated into taking it.

That distinction is central to modern scam prevention.

Among respondents in the U.S. sample, 30% have been tricked into making a bank transfer, or know someone close to them who has. In these cases, the authorized user may pass login checks, confirm a payment, and still be acting under pressure, deception, or false instructions.

Importantly, consumers also see banks as part of the answer. 51% expect the sending bank, receiving bank, or both to bear scam-loss responsibility. While this does not, on its own, establish liability or regulatory obligation, it does show that customers increasingly expect financial institutions to recognize scam patterns before money moves, not only verify the user at the point of access.

That requires risk analysis across the journey. Login, device, payee, transaction, session behavior, and payment context all help determine whether a genuine customer is acting normally or showing signs of coercion, coaching, or unusual payment behavior.

Protection failures put customer relationships at risk

When fraud or scams occur, the damage is not limited to the transaction.

• 39% of surveyed respondents say fraud or a scam significantly or somewhat reduced their trust in the provider involved.
• 23% say trust increased when the situation was handled well.
• 43% would stop using an affected card or account after failure.

That split is important.

It suggests that the post-event experience, including communication, resolution, and perceived fairness, can influence whether a customer sees the institution as part of the problem or part of the protection.

From an operational perspective, that can translate into complaints, servicing demand, lower account activity, movement of funds, or attrition. Fraud teams therefore need to look beyond confirmed loss. In practice, the impact of an incident can continue through the contact center, dispute process, digital servicing, and future customer behavior.

Strong fraud protection now influences provider choice

Fraud prevention is becoming part of why consumers choose where to bank.

56% of surveyed respondents rank strong fraud protection among their top three provider-choice considerations. That places fraud defenses alongside the broader value proposition, not only in the risk function.

For financial institutions, this shift changes how fraud performance should be discussed internally. Detection rates, false positives, and losses still matter. Equally, customer experience measures, servicing outcomes, and confidence after high-risk events deserve attention.

Strong fraud protection can support risk reduction while also reinforcing the reasons customers stay with a provider. The institutions best positioned for this are those that can apply security precisely, intervene when evidence warrants it, and avoid turning routine activity into a frustrating process.

Consumers accept security when it feels proportionate

The survey findings do not point to a demand for less security. They point to a demand for better-targeted security.

• 60% abandoned an online purchase at least once because payment or security was difficult, slow or confusing.
• At the same time, 59% welcome extra checks when a payment looks unusual.
• And when a genuine payment is wrongly declined, 67% would contact their bank.

That is a clear warning for issuers, merchants, and payment providers: controls that are hard to complete can push legitimate customers out of the transaction.

Viewed together, these findings show the real challenge. Customers are willing to participate in protection when the reason is clear and the moment makes sense. However, poor execution can create abandonment, frustration, and avoidable service contact.

The task is not to remove authentication or avoid intervention. It is to reserve stronger controls for higher-risk moments and make those controls understandable when they appear.

Passive protection can reduce friction for trusted customers

Passive fraud-prevention technology can help financial institutions evaluate risk without asking every customer to complete the same visible step.

Among respondents in the U.S. sample, 74% are positive about background fraud-prevention technology such as behavioral biometrics or device intelligence. Separately, 63% are happy to complete payment security checks.

At the same time, those findings should be read carefully. The survey measures method preference and attitudes to security, not a like-for-like trust score for every authentication method. Even so, preference remains anchored in familiar methods, and visible checks still have a role, especially when risk is elevated.

The value of passive signals is that they can help distinguish normal customer activity from unusual behavior in real time. Behavioral biometrics, device intelligence, transaction context, and consortium-based fraud intelligence can add evidence before a decision is made. That evidence can support a smoother path for trusted activity and stronger action when signals indicate risk.

The strategic takeaway: strong, contextual, proportionate protection

Financial institutions should turn these findings into more precise fraud decisions: connect risk signals across the journey, escalate controls only when the evidence warrants it, and consider the effect of every intervention on trust, transaction completion, and account usage.

Financial institutions can use four principles to align fraud strategy with that expectation:

1. Treat fraud as connected. Combine account, card, payment, device, and behavioural signals so teams can see risk across the customer journey.
2. Intervene on evidence. Timing and relevance determine the cost of friction. A step-up at the right moment can reassure customers, while a poorly targeted one can stop a good transaction.
3. Protect the relationship. Measure trust and servicing impact alongside loss, especially after scams, false declines, and account or card compromise.
4. Adapt by journey. Use granular policies and responses aligned with customer context and institutional risk appetite.

Outseer’s approach to all-cause fraud prevention is built around this kind of contextual decisioning. By bringing together behavioral biometrics, device and transaction signals, risk-based authentication, and intelligence from the Outseer Global Data Network, institutions can assess risk in real time and respond with controls that fit the moment.

The priority is to turn those connected signals into timely decisions that reduce fraud while keeping legitimate customers moving.

Build fraud protection around the customer journey

Surveyed respondents expect financial institutions to recognize fraud and scam risk without turning routine activity into a barrier. Explore how Outseer helps banks and issuers apply behavioral biometrics, connected risk intelligence, and targeted intervention to protect higher-risk moments while preserving the customer experience.