Social media scams:
Understanding theconsumer experienceto create a safer
digital world

may 2019
			Consumers
International

Social media scams

1AbouT Us
Consumers International is the membership organisation for
consumer groups around the world.
We believe in a world where everyone has access to safe andsustainable goods and services. We bring together over 200
member organisations in more than 100 countries to empowerand champion the rights of consumers everywhere.
We are their voice in international policy-making forums andthe global marketplace to ensure they are treated safely, fairly
and honestly. We are resolutely independent, unconstrained bybusinesses or political parties.
We work in partnership and exercise our influence with integrity,
tenacity and passion to deliver tangible results.
With thanks to the Public Authority of Consumer Protection in
Oman, for supporting the delivery of this international research led
by Consumers International.
Consumers International is a charity (No.1122155) and a not-forprofit company limited by guarantee (No. 04337865) registered inEngland and Wales.

			Consumers
International

Social media scams

2

Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................................41

INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................................5

2

SOCIAL MEDIA SCAMS EXPLAINED...................................................................................................................6

2.1 What is a scam?......................................................................................................................................................6
2.2 Why social media?..................................................................................................................................................6
2.3 Common social media scams..............................................................................................................................7
2.4 Who is at risk?..........................................................................................................................................................7
2.5 Impact and harm.....................................................................................................................................................7
3

SCAM CONVERSATIONS AND TRENDS.............................................................................................................9

3.1 Scale of the problem...............................................................................................................................................9
3.2 Scam conversation trends.................................................................................................................................. 10
3.3 Types of scam....................................................................................................................................................... 114

TAKING ACTION AGAINST SCAMS.................................................................................................................. 13

4.1 Sharing warnings and advice............................................................................................................................. 14
4.2 Official reporting................................................................................................................................................... 16
4.3 Detecting harmful content.................................................................................................................................. 16
4.4 Enforcement.......................................................................................................................................................... 17
4.5 Consumer redress................................................................................................................................................ 19
5RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................................................................... 20

5.1 Developing consistent rules for consumer protection.................................................................................. 20
5.2 Increasing responsibility for social media platforms.................................................................................... 20
5.3 Defining good practice for business................................................................................................................. 21
5.4 Exploring potential of digital tools to detect fraud......................................................................................... 21
5.5 Facilitating consistent and effective reporting............................................................................................... 22
5.6 Improving stakeholder cooperation.................................................................................................................. 22
5.7 Raising consumer awareness............................................................................................................................ 22
6

CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................................................ 23

7

APPENDIX.............................................................................................................................................................. 24

			Consumers
International

Social media scams

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Social media is a modern phenomenon, revolutionising
the way that consumers seek information,communicate with one another and interact withbusinesses. There are three billion active users of social
media1, such as Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp andInstagram, with numbers increasing at an estimatedone million each day.
The widespread use of social media provides plentiful
opportunities for criminals to connect with consumers
and commit fraud, using a range of tactics. Scammers
are constantly devising new and innovative ways totrick people out of money or harvest personal data,
which can be used for financial gain. Social media
scams have the potential to cause significant harm
to consumers in terms of financial loss, emotional
wellbeing and degradation of trust. Urgent action isneeded to protect consumers and minimise detriment.
In the absence of consistent and comparable data at
a global level, Consumers International undertook thispioneering study to better understand the consumer
experience, identify good practice in tackling the issues
and recommend solutions. We monitored public
online conversations about social media scams innine countries for two years, supplementing this withinterviews of consumer protection and enforcement
agencies about national trends. See ‘Our Research’ in
Chapter 1 for more details.
Our findings suggest that the volume and impact ofsocial media scams is increasing rapidly. Impostor
scams - where criminals pose as authentic brands,
authorities or friends to deceive victims - are mostcommon, followed by e-commerce scams - where
scammers fail to provide goods that consumers
have bought, or send goods which are counterfeit orsubstandard quality.
It is clear that social media scams present complex
challenges for consumers and those charged withprotecting them. This report highlights the global natureof scams and suggests ways that all stakeholders
in this diverse space - from consumer protection
organisations to government agencies, industry andsocial media platforms - can work together to enhancesafety and minimise harm.

It is clear that social
media scams present
complex challenges
for consumers andthose charged withprotecting them.

The key recommendations of this report are to:develop consistent rules for consumer protection; driveincreased liability of social media platforms; define
good practice for business; explore the potential of
digital tools to detect fraud; facilitate consistent andeffective reporting of social media scams; improvestakeholder cooperation; and raise consumerawareness.

1

The Next Web, Number of social media users passes 3 billion with no signs of slowing, 7 Aug 2017			Consumers
International

Social media scams

4

1. Introduction
Billions of consumers worldwide are active onsocial media. These platforms open up a wealthof opportunities for scammers to connect
with consumers, and the potential for harm isimmeasurable.
To effectively protect consumers against increasing
threats from social media scams, it is essential thatall stakeholders understand the issues and how toaddress them. But although evidence suggests thatsocial media scams are on the rise, it is difficult to get
accurate data about the scale of the problem, due toa number of factors. Evidence suggests that scams
are severely underreported, which may be caused byconsumers not realising that they have been the victim
of a scam, feeling too embarrassed to report the crime,or simply not knowing who to contact. On a global level,
data collection is carried out by a range of different
organisations, using a variety of methods. This has
resulted in fragmented and inconsistent data, which is
impossible to compare.
To fill this critical information gap, Consumers
International commissioned this qualitative researchstudy, the first of its kind, to better understand theconsumer experience of social media scams, identify
trends, assess potential risks and recommend
solutions to tackle problems at a global level.
This report summarises the findings of our research.
Chapter 2 explains common social media scams, how
they work and why social media platforms are rapidly
becoming the number one choice for online fraudsters.
Chapter 3 investigates the prevalence of social media
scams and where they are taking place.
Chapter 4 explores how consumers get information
about social media scams and highlights good practicesystems for detection, reporting and enforcement.
Chapter 5 puts forward recommendations for
effectively tackling social media scams at both anational and international level.

Our research
To gain insight into the consumer experience of social
media scams, Consumers International commissioned
global research agency, We Are Social, to monitor public
online conversations about social media scams in ninecountries located in three different language markets
These were:• English speaking - UK, US, Nigeria, India• Spanish speaking - Spain, Chile, Argentina• Arabic speaking - Egypt and Saudi Arabia
nglish speaking - UK, US, Nigeria, India•
Spanish speaking - Spain, Chile, Argentina
Countries chosen had a comparatively high level ofsocial media activity within their region, plus one ormore Consumers International member organisations.
Between August 2016 and August 2018, the agency
analysed more than 4,500 posts from consumers andinfluencers across Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, blogs
and public forums, based on ‘keyword’ searches.
To supplement this research, Consumers International
conducted in-depth interviews, between August andNovember 2018, with representatives from 20 global
consumer groups, consumer protection authorities,
civil society organisations and enforcement agencies.
In December 2018 we invited all of these experts,
plus senior representatives from banking, telecoms,
e-commerce, national police, government, and majortech companies to a stakeholder workshop to shareideas about how to make the online environment safer
for consumers.

Consumers International would like to thank allof the individuals and organisations
who contributed tothis study.

			Consumers
International

Social media scams

5

89.9M

38.5M

32.1M

USA

UK

EGYPT

283.8
M

13M

INDIA

CHILE
646.1 million:social media
users acrossall markets

24.2M

18.1M

ARGENTINASAUDIARABIA

MARKETS

SpanishEnglishArabicSPAIN

NIGERIA

27.5M

19M

Figure 1: Number of social media users, by markets analysed

2. SOCIAL MEDIA SCAMSEXPLAINED
2.1

What is a scam?

Scams are fraud: a criminal activity designed to trick
someone out of money or personal details. Methods
constantly evolve as scammers look for new ways tocommit fraud and avoid detection. Consumers might
be contacted by telephone, post, email or even on theirdoorsteps. In the long history of scams, the internet isa relatively new way for fraudsters to target potential
victims and they have been quick to reinvent old tricks
for new digital platforms.

2.2

Why social media?

Social media is a dream come true for fraudsters. Threebillion people - 40% of the global population - are active
users of social media, such as Facebook, Twitter,
WhatsApp and Instagram, with a million new users
estimated each day2. This popularity, combined withthe open nature of social media platforms, makes it
easy for criminals to reach incredibly large numbers ofpeople.

2
34Social media enables ‘social engineering’ of scams,
giving criminals access to vast amounts of personaldata, which can then be used to target specificdemographic groups and personalise scams to makethem more convincing. For example, using a person’s
real name, or making reference to their hometown,
recent holiday, hobbies and friends.
Social media gives fraudsters the ability to hide theirtrue identities and motives behind the anonymity of
fake profiles and accounts, which they use to mislead
consumers3, impersonate trusted sources and makeoffers that are too good to be true4. These scams canbe difficult to spot as they appear to come from trusted
sources such as family, ‘friends’, ‘followers’, online
community members or known brands.
Scams can spread with alarming speed across social
media, as likes, shares and retweets propagate content
to a wide range of audiences. In effect, the social media
model allows scammers to sit back and let consumers,
albeit involuntarily, do much of the hard work.

We Are Social, Global Digital Snapshot
Guardian ‘It’s not just the Fyre festival – this is the golden age of the social media con’, 17/01/18
European Commission, Too good to be true: the real price of fake products, 2017			Consumers
International

Social media scams

6

2.3

Common social media scams

The aim of a scam is to trick people into parting withmoney or revealing sensitive personal data - suchas email addresses, passwords and birth dates - tofacilitate ID theft (known as ‘phishing’), which can thenbe used for financial gain. However, approaches canvary.
Most scams fall into three broad categories:•

E-commerce scam - fraudsters claim to begenuine online sellers, on sites such as Facebook
Marketplace. Consumers pay for goods, whichthen turn out to be counterfeit (e.g. fake clothingor gift vouchers) or poor quality (e.g. faulty or
substandard). In some cases, goods simply neverarrive.

•Investment scam - fraudsters advertise a ‘too good
to be true’ investment opportunity, sometimes
using news stories and advertisements that appear
to be from genuine sources. Consumers who are
tempted to invest lose some or all of their money.

•

Impostor scam - fraudsters pose as authentic
brands, genuine friends or family, to gain aconsumer’s trust asking them to purchase goods,
send money or click on links which downloadmalware to their computer.

Within these three categories, lots of different tactics
are used. Figure 2 explains some current social media
scams.

2.4

Who is at risk?

Scammers use increasingly sophisticated techniques
to target consumers and anyone can become a victim.
The experts we interviewed, reported no significant
differences in the number of victims in terms of age or
gender. However, fraudsters are likely to target certain
scams at specific demographic groups if they think it
will increase success. For example, Trading Standards
in the UK reports that young men are the most likely to
be targeted by online scams involving steroids, while
middle-aged women are most likely to be targeted byscams involving diet pills. The Public Interest Advocacy
Centre in Canada told us that younger people seem themost likely to be targeted by cryptocurrency scams.

media6. Research by the Swedish Consumer Agency
found that consumers with physical or cognitive
impairments, low incomes, low levels of education andpoor language skills were more likely to become victimsof subscription traps7.

2.5

Impact and harm

Scams have the potential to cause great harm toconsumers and financial losses can be potentially lifechanging. Consumers International member Which?
recently reported on bank impersonation scams thatlost 19 victims almost £350,000 between May 2018
and January 20198. Evidence from other Consumers
International members suggests that the amount ofmoney being lost per scam is increasing. For example,
data from the Australian Competition and Consumer
Commission shows that, despite reported social media
scams remaining fairly static over the last few years,
the amount of money lost quadrupled between 2015
and 2018, from $3.8 to $13.1 million AUS dollars9.
The Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre reports similar trends,
with complaints of fraud decreasing, while total losses
increase10.
In addition to financial losses, victims of scams canbe affected mentally and emotionally. They may feelashamed and suffer from social isolation, which canaffect their interactions with others. It can also degrade
consumer trust in digital marketplaces, social media
platforms and genuine brands, affecting future online
behaviour and interactions11.
It is important to note that social media scams
can have a negative impact on brands as well as
consumers. Impostor scams, where criminals pose as
authentic brands, reviewers and well-known figures totrick consumers out of money can cause reputational
damage to the individual or organisation being
impersonated.

Consumers in vulnerable situations might find it
more difficult to make informed choices or say no
to high pressure selling, which can make them more
susceptible to fraud5. For example, Citizens Advice
in the UK found that older people can be particularly
vulnerable to online scams, including those on social

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Lee, J. and Soberon‐Ferrer, H.  Consumer Vulnerability to Fraud: Influencing Factors, Journal of Consumer Affairs, 31, 1997
Pardoe, A. and Couture, X. ‘Changing the story on Scams,’ Citizens Advice‘Consumer Reports 2017,’ Swedish Consumer Agency, p. 21.
Which? Bank Transfer Scam Victims to get Refunds from May, 2019
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ‘Scams Statistics’
Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre ‘Statistical Reports’
National Trading Standards Scams Team, UK			Consumers
International

Social media scams

7

CATFISH: fraudsters create fake profiles to make contact with individuals and lurethem into an online relationship. They take time to build trust, then ask consumers tosend money or share personal details.

CRYPTOCURRENCY: fake advertisements, news articles or messages tempt
consumers into investing in cryptocurrency, such as bitcoin. Consumers lose theirinvestment, have their personal details stolen, or both.

CLICKBAIT SCAM: social media posts with ‘exciting celebrity news’ encourage
consumers to click on links or hidden URLs. These lead to an external site which
downloads malware to the victim’s computer.

CASH GRABS: a fraudster hacks into someone’s social media account, then sends
messages to their friends claiming to be in desperate need of help and asking them tosend them money. For example, in the ‘stranded traveller’ scam a ‘friend’ on holiday
has had their wallet stolen and needs money to get home.

FAKE COMPETITIONS OR GIVEAWAYS: fraudsters pose as a legitimate
business, usually on Facebook, asking users to ‘like and share’ posts or click on links
to win non-existent prizes. ‘Like-farming’ allows scammers to build followers, whothey can target with spam or scams. Clicking links could download malware.

MEMBERSHIP SCAMS: a consumer is invited to join a fake group or fan page andis required to share personal details, send premium text messages or pay formembership.

QUIZ SCAMS: a consumer sees an innocent looking ‘fun quiz’ on a friend’s feed.
They are asked to enter details such as their mother’s maiden name, birthday monthand first pet’s name - often used in account security questions - to create their own‘Superhero’ or ‘Rockstar’ name. This is an attempt to ‘phish’ for personal data.

SUBSCRIPTION TRAPS: a consumer is directed to sign up for a product orservice which they never receive, Ongoing debits are made from their account, or they
are targeted with demands for payment.
Figure 2: Types of social media scam			Consumers
International

Social media scams

8

$15.7
$13.1
$9.6

$3.8

Figure 3: Money lost to social media scams by year, in millions of Australian dollars
Source: January 2015 to October 2018 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

3. SCAM CONVERSATIONSAND TRENDS
3.1

Scale of the problem

Online scams have grown exponentially as internet
usage has flourished and cybercrime is the biggest
source of concern for 81% of internet users aroundthe world, according to a 2018 survey12. Social media
is an increasingly popular way for scammers to target
consumers online, according to our expert interviews,
and platforms such as Facebook and Instagram have
rapidly become the primary channel for online scams.
To date, understanding the true scale of the problem,
and the real impact on consumers, has been difficult
due to a lack of comparable data at a global level.

During this period, there were significant spikes inconversation volumes during specific scam attacks,
such as WannaCry in May 2017 and Tumblr scam in
March 2018, when users were sharing information,
warnings and advice.
Our analysis shows that media coverage of such
incidents promotes wider awareness as consumers
seek information outside social media, for example byconducting Google searches.

However, our research reveals a significant increase in
online conversations about scams in all the countries
analysed, with volume more than doubling between
August 2016 and August 2018 (see Figure 2).

12 Centre for International Governance Innovation, The Internet Survey, 2018			
Consumers
International

Social media scams

9March 2018:
Scammers impersonating
Tumblr bloggers

150,000

May 2017:
Ransomware WannaCry
worldwide cyber attack

January 2018:
Warnings over thefree Spotify Premium
accounts scam

100,000

50,000

0January 2017

July 2017

January 2018

July 2018

TOTAL

English language: India, Nigeria, UK and USA; Spanish: Argentina, Chile, Spain; Arabic: Egypt, Saudi Arabia
Conversation volume was 96% in English; 4% in Spanish and less than 1% in Arabic

Figure 4: Conversation volume of social media scams
Note: We monitored online conversations about scams in India, Nigeria, UK, USA, Argentina, Chile, Spain, Saudi Arabia and Egypt from
August 2016 to August 2018

3.2

Scam conversation trends

By country
Scams are a hot topic of discussion worldwide, butconversation volumes vary by country. Unsurprisingly,
there is a strong correlation between conversation
volumes and the number of social media users. For
example, the majority (96%) of online discussions
about social media scams take place in the English
speaking markets, which have the highest numbers ofsocial media users. The US, with the largest numberof social media users out of the countries surveyed,dominates in terms of absolute volume – with 1.3
million ‘mentions’ of scams between August 2016 andAugust 2018.
However, the proportion of scam mentions per
social media user (see Annex), tells a different story.
Nigeria had the highest number of scam ‘mentions’per social media user, mainly driven by the popularityof the Nairaland forum13, where 71% of scamrelated conversations took place. While India had adisproportionately low volume of scam conversations
per social media user.

Online scams are often ‘borderless’ - committed bycriminals who operate internationally - or at least haveinternational elements.
We found that social media scams often originate fromanother country where the same language is spoken.
For example, scams affecting consumers in the UK
might originate in Canada or the US, and the National
Consumer Complaints Centre Malaysia (FOMCA)
receives complaints from consumers who have beentargeted by social media scams originating from China.
By platform
Across all nine countries, where it was possible toidentify the origin of scams, WhatsApp and Facebook
were the platforms through which scams propagate themost, followed by Instagram and Twitter. Consumers
do not necessarily reference the platform when sharing
information about a social media scam, therefore in
all countries we analysed, there are large numbersof scam ‘mentions’ where the platform of origin was
unclear.

13 Nairaland was established in 2014 and reportedly has over 55 million Internet users, corresponding to 32.9% of the entire
population of Nigeria.
			Consumers
International

Social media scams

10

3.3

Types of scam

Local cultural and market factors influence the typesof scams consumers experience – a finding shared by
the organisations we interviewed, and reinforced byour social media analysis across English, Arabic andSpanish speaking markets. (See Figure 5).
Three types of social media scam dominateddiscussions:
Impostor scams
Impostor scams, where scammers pose as brands,
authorities or even friends to deceive victims, are themost commonly discussed type of scam in mostcountries. These were most frequently discussed byconsumers in Spain (51%) and closely followed by
Argentina (49%).

The most popular form of impostor scam, particularlyin the Spanish and Arabic markets, consists ofscammers impersonating the WhatsApp brand topromise downloadable add-ons, such as the ability
to customise colours. Scams are often spread using
compromised accounts, where a fraudster hacks intoa genuine account then sends out links to harmful
downloads.
According to the experts we interviewed, consumers
have high levels of trust communicating with contacts
via WhatsApp and are likely to open messages they
believe are from genuine contacts. In the UK and US,
the most talked about impostor scams are catfish anddating scams.

Nigeria

USA

India

UK

Spain

Chile

Argentina

Saudi
ArabiaEgypt

MAIN TYPE
OF SOCIALMEDIA SCAMS

Impostor
Scam
(29%)

Impostor
Scam
(36%)

Impostor
Scam
(26%)

Impostor
Scam
(36%)

Impostor
Scam
(39%)

e-commerce

Impostor
Scam
(23%)

Impostor
Scam(9%)

Impostor
Scam
(34%)

MAIN
REPORTEDSOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORM

(41%)

(27%)

(19%)

(24%)

(87%)

(43%)

WhatsApp

Facebook

Facebook

Facebook

WhatsApp

WhatsApp

Economic &Financial
CrimesCommission

Twitter
SafetyBoomFact Check

Action
Fraud

Policia
Nacional

Platform

Journalism

UK fraud
centreNational
policeVOCALAUTHORITIESON SOCIAL
MEDIA

(19%)

SERNAC

Consumerprotection
authority

Law enforcement(78%)
WhatsApp

Aerolineas
Argentinas
Airline

(39%)

(18%)

Facebook

Facebook

Ministry ofCommerce& Industry

Mahrusa
Privateindividual

Government
agencyMethodology: Using Crimson Hexagon and a defined search string (in local languages) around scams, we analyseda randomised sample of 4,500 posts spanning across all nine markets. This gave us the prominence of themes by %(e.g. imposter scams) and the main reported social platforms (e.g. WhatsApp) within those conversations by market.

Figure 5: Scam trends by country
Note: The main type of social media scam refers to the most commonly cited type of social media scam in public online conversations.
Note: The main reported social media platform refers to the most commonly cited social media platform in public online conversations
about social media scams.

			Consumers
International

Social media scams

11E-commerce scams
E-commerce on social media platforms is growing.
And Facebook Marketplace, Instagram ads, and ‘buy
buttons’ embedded in social media posts aim to createa seamless marketplace experience for consumers.
Unfortunately, this creates further opportunities for
scammers to exploit consumers, with our researchshowing that e-commerce14 scams are particularly
prevalent on Facebook Marketplace and WhatsApp.
E-commerce scams are particularly widespread in
the emerging markets of Nigeria and India where
fake vendors spread scams via social media forums
and online marketplaces. These typically involve thepurchase of clothing items, with consumers receiving
far-lower quality items than advertised or, in somecases, not receiving any item at all. Consumers mention
these scams taking place on Facebook Marketplaceand WhatsApp.
In higher income economies like the US and UK,
e-commerce scams typically involve tech goods likemobile phones, or high cost items such as cameras
or event tickets. Interviews with consumer protection
organisations indicate that the most common type of
e-commerce scam is sending items of much lower
quality than described.

Finance and crypto currency scams
Finance and currency scams are the third mostprevalent scam in the markets we analysed. This typeof scam is most common in Nigeria, where they makeup 21% of conversation volumes about scams andleast common in Egypt and Saudi Arabia where they
represent less than 1% of the social media scams
analysed. Finance scams in Nigeria most often takeplace via WhatsApp and one-to-one chats – where
scammers make direct contact with consumers to gain
their trust and persuade them to make investments.

Theme

Argentina

Chile

Egypt

India

Nigeria

Saudi
Arabia

Spain

UK

USA

WhatsApp

21%

10%

7%

0%

41%

13%

29%

6%

5%

Facebook

6%

6%

8%

19%

22%

39%

5%

24%

27%

Instagram

4%

2%

0%

4%

4%

2%

8%

7%

LinkedIn0%

Twitter3%

Platform unclear*

67%

Grand Total

100%

11%

11%

8%

12%

1%

16%

17%

82%

73%

67%

24%

36%

63%

46%

49%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

*Consumers mentioned social media scams in posts but it is unclear which platform is being referred to either because there areno links, or the social media platform has not been mentioned

Figure 6: Origin of scams, by social media platform

14 European Commission, Euro-stat			Consumers
International

Social media scams

12

4. TAKING ACTION AGAINST SCAMSSwift and effective action against scams is essential to minimising consumer detriment (see Figure 6). Our
research discovered a wide range of actions being employed by consumers, consumer protection authorities andorganisations to tackle the complex challenges we are facing. This chapter summarises the current situation andhighlights some of the good practice that we found.

Social media scams life cycle
Consumer scam process

Scammer
publishes
an advert
or message
on a social
media platform

Consumersees advert,
post ormessage

Consumermakes anorder, sharespersonal details
or makes
payment

Consumer
reports notreceiving the
product, fakeor counterfeit
goods, harassment,
additionalcharges or theftof personal
details

Consumerdemands
compensation

Possible actions to prevent scams
Deter scammer
through clear
warnings in terms& conditions

Include ID
requirements for
traders as partof registration

Apply AI
algorithms
to identify
potential scamadvertisements
and messages
and theninvestigate
and block

Educate & informconsumers
to spot scams
in advertisements
and messages

Issue alerts oncurrent threats

Deliver timely
warnings at pointof payment

Share developed
warnings about how
to safely interact
with contacts andtraders on social
media platforms

Promote bestpractices(two-factor
authentication,
secure websites,
regular scans
and updates)
developed
by genuine
businesses
to identify
scammers

Digital tagging
of advertisements
to show digital
supply chain

The social media scams
life cycle as we currently see it

Test and ensure clear
and transparent ways
for consumers onsocial media platforms
to report scams

Create processes
and guidelines
to compensate
consumers

Create robustinternational processes
to investigate scams
that are reported
to platforms andenforcement agencies
Block the social media
account of the scammer
Take co-ordinated action toprevent scammer re-offending
Send scammer’s
details to authorities
Evidence of scam reviewed
by authorities and platform
Block scammer’s bank accountBlock the domain registrationof a scam website
Block the ability of scammers
to advertise through social
media platforms
International cooperation
across countries to target andstop international scammers

Consumers International

Figure 7: Tackling social media scams

			Consumers
International

Social media scams

13

4.1

Sharing warnings and advice

Consumers turn to each other
Our research shows that consumers are most likely
to turn to other social media users, rather than official
sources, to seek information about suspected scams,
or share warnings. Evidence gathered across markets
indicates that consumers tend to be confused aboutsocial media scams and where to turn for a trusted
mediator, leading to online discussions instead.
In Spanish speaking markets, consumers tend to sharesuspected scam threats posted by the Spanish policeor mainstream news accounts. In Arabic speaking
markets, consumers actively warn others of scamrisks and frequently offer advice – such as how toreport fraudulent activity, how to protect yourself fromscammers (e.g. antivirus software) and what to do if a
consumer’s account has been compromised. In English
speaking markets, consumers share views about theincreasing sophistication of phishing attempts, andhow difficult they are to spot.
For example, in the US, social media users often
complain about the number of ‘bots’15 that exist on
platforms.

Where social media users suspect they have been
approached by a scam, they appeal to a range oforganisations and individuals to verify the situation– such as the brand impersonated by the scam, theplatform it occurred on and the wider social media
community.
However, scammers have been known to takeadvantage of consumer trust in online communities.
For example, many scam victims in Nigeria turn toNairaland16 for advice, but there is evidence to showthat scammers often respond to these calls for help
with more scam attempts.
While social media users appear willing to share
information about unsuccessful scam attempts, orstories about other scam victims, they rarely speak
about their own experiences once they have fallen
victim to a scam. This is particularly true in Spanish
speaking and Arabic speaking markets. Stigma around
falling for scams, and the assumption that the victim
may have been reckless or naïve, can make victims
reluctant to share information.

Figure 8: Examples of consumers seeking advice about social media scams
Note: The most commonly cited platform for social media scams in each country is highlighted.

15 Algorithms that impersonate individuals or organisations
16 Nairaland is an online community that was established in 2014 and reportedly has over 55 million Internet users, corresponding
to 32.9% of the entire population of Nigeria.
			Consumers
International

Social media scams

14

Official warnings need to evolve at a fast pace to keep
up with current risks. Our conversation analysis reveals
which authorities are most vocal about social media
scams, in each of our nine countries (see Figure 5).
For example, Action Fraud is most active in the UK, theNational Consumer Service in Chile and the national
police in Spain (see Case study). Although many
countries have authorities responsible for fighting
fraud, there are different approaches in how they deal
with warning consumers about scams, possibly due toresources and legislative powers17.
Our research shows that some agencies engage
very little with social media to communicate with
consumers, while others proactively use their official
social media accounts to warn consumers about
emerging scams. For example, the Competition Bureau
of Canada told us that it regularly issues scam alerts
through Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn, which have
had a positive impact on a wide audience.

CASE STUDY:DIGITAL SELF-DEFENSE APP
In 2017 the Danish Consumer Council (ForbrugerrådetTænk) developed an app called ‘My Digital Self-Defense’in response to a survey that showed more than one inseven Danish citizens had been scammed online. The
app shares daily updates, guidance and advice to boost
consumer safety online. Several companies, authorities
and institutions have joined the initiative and contributecontent including warnings about impostor web pages,
scam competitions and dangerous links in texts ande-mails18. As a result of these efforts the My Digital SelfDefense app published 7,300 user-generated tips and236 scam notifications and warnings in 2018.

CASE STUDY: CONSUMERENGAGEMENT ON TWITTERIn Spain, the Policia Nacional have establishedthemselves as a trusted point of contact for
consumers seeking advice on how to avoid scams or
wishing to report incidents. They successfully engage
consumers on Twitter by posting humorous and lighthearted warnings to raise awareness and encouragesocial media users to interact with them directly. Thisis a model that could be taken up by authorities inother countries as a way of building trust between
consumers and enforcement in online spaces, as wellas helping to reduce the social stigma associated withfalling victim to a scam.
Figure 9: Digital self-defence app
The role of consumer organisations
Both Consumers International members and consumer
protection authorities we interviewed stressed the needfor more consumer education about scams, and often
play a vital role in raising awareness. For example, theDanish Consumer Council has demonstrated that apps
can be an effective way of reaching consumers toprovide real time advice.

17 Not all national consumer authorities have an obligation or the legal powers to investigate or resolve consumer complaints. And
some national consumer authorities focus on law enforcement actions to protect the public interest but do not intervene in individual
cases. International Consumer Protection and Enforcement Network www.icpen.org/resolve-dispute
18‘New app helps Danish consumers protect themselves from online fraud’, BEUC

			
Consumers
International

Social media scams

15

The role of industry

4.3

The private sector also has a key role to play ineducating consumers. Financial service providers arein a good position to disseminate timely and relevant
information. Our analysis found that some banks
already provide regular alerts to customers about therisk of scams, through online banking websites, apps
and social media posts. However, some interventions
from banks go beyond simple warnings and include
interactive content to engage consumers. For example,
Barclays bank in the UK runs ‘Digitally Safe Quizzes’
and NatWest conducts Twitter polls asking followers if
certain messages are safe or are scams.

Swift identification of fraudulent, offensive or harmful
content is key to protecting social media users, yet
the experts we interviewed highlighted the challenges
given the sheer volume of online content coming frommultiple sources. However, they also raised some ideas
for good practice.

4.2

Official reporting

Experts estimate that reported scams are only the
tip of the iceberg, with UK Trading Standards and theCanadian Anti-Fraud Centre estimating that only 5%of scams are reported in their countries. Our researchshows that those who have fallen victim to a scam areextremely unlikely to report it to official sources due to arange of factors, including embarrassment, apathy anduncertainty about who to contact. In many countries
there are multiple agencies collecting data about fraud
in different sectors, leading to consumer confusion
about where to report scams or seek redress. Some
consumer organisations we interviewed, particularly in
the Middle East, told us that consumers are unlikely toreport as they are accustomed to accepting unsolicited
scams as part of using digital communications andtools.
Consumer protection authorities record and classify
fraud incidents in different ways, making it difficult tocompare data. On a positive note, in our interviews,
some organisations explained that they are starting tocode online fraud incidents with reference to where they
originate from on social media platforms. However, thisgood practice is not consistently applied at a global
level.

Detecting harmful content

In some countries, authorities carry out checks toverify the legitimacy of the businesses which may thencreate an account, advertise or post on social media.
For example, the NCCC/FOMCA in Malaysia requires
traders to register with the authorities. However, manysmall traders fail to do so.
Other projects, such as ScamAdviser and theTrustworthy Accountability Group (TAG) (see casestudies) aim to authenticate businesses or advertisers
using digital tools such as Artificial Intelligence (AI).
Although AI-enabled solutions are already being
successfully deployed to identify suspicious websites,
the enforcement agencies we spoke with felt that AI
could struggle to identify scam advertisements, as theyoften use the same language as legitimate ones.
Social media platforms themselves could be moreproactive in using digital tools to detect fraudulent ads.
However, advertising provides key revenue19, which cancreate a potential conflict of interest when it comes toeffective self-policing. Independent regulators can wield
more power.
For example, in the UK, the Advertising Standards
Authority (ASA) can require the amendment orwithdrawal of ads that break rules20 and local TradingStandards can issue fines for repeated breaches21..

CASE STUDY:SCAMADVISER TOOL
ScamAdviser.com, developed by the Ecommerce
Foundation, is a free tool for consumers to check thelegitimacy of a website. When a consumer entersa web address into the site, algorithms check 40
factors such as the IP address, site reviews, security
and spam reputation to generate an overall ‘trustscore’. ScamAdviser.com has more than 55 million
websites on its database and 2.5 million unique users
per month.

19
20
21

‘Social Advertising Worldwide’, Statista‘ASA Sanctions’, ASA‘Unfair trading, trade descriptions and pricing FAQs’, Law Donut			
Consumers
International

Social media scams

16

CASE STUDY: TACKLING AD FRAUDThe Trustworthy Accountability Group (TAG) is a crossindustry self-regulatory programme to tackle criminal
activity in digital advertising. It has developed a set ofstandards to tackle ad fraud that brands, their agencies
and advertising technology partners can sign up to22.
Platforms can check TAG to make sure companies
have been authenticated, then host content secure in
the knowledge that it is not fraudulent. The numberof companies voluntarily signing up to this service is
growing, which increases the viability of the system asa solution. Further development could be instrumental
in providing a counterbalance to the difficulty ofidentifying intentionally misleading advertising using
moderators and AI solutions.

Some tech companies we spoke to demonstrated
how they are using innovative digital tools, suchas algorithms, to tackle fraud before it reaches theconsumer:•eBay has developed a new algorithm to identify
and flag activities that fall outside the norm in
e-commerce transactions. In initial tests, whichanalysed almost 300,000 transactions, thealgorithm detected 40% of 492 fraudulent cases,
incorrectly flagging only 29 legitimate transactions(around 0.001% of the sample)23.

•

Google is harnessing technology to improve its
ability to analyse and block scam emails headed fora Gmail inbox. Security measures include the ability
to predict email messages that contain malware,
warnings when a user is replying to someone not intheir contact list or when a user clicks on a phishinglink24.

4.4

Enforcement

Responsibility for monitoring social media scams andenforcement of consumer protection measures may
be shared between the police, consumer protectionand enforcement agencies and social media platforms
themselves. However, the nature of social media scams
can make it difficult to track down those responsible
and bring them to justice.
Difficulties of operating cross border
Our expert interviews show that, at a global level, thebiggest obstacle to enforcement is the absence ofa cohesive and consistent framework of consumer
protection legislation. Online fraud is frequently
committed across national borders, while many
consumer protection and enforcement agencies are
restricted by national or regional boundaries. As one
consumer protection authority highlighted, different
consumer law can apply in different countries withdifferent powers to prosecute crimes so this cancomplicate the pursuit of fraudsters. For example,
US regulators can levy substantial fines, whereas UK
regulators can prosecute.
Some countries and regions, such as Malaysia andJapan, have bilateral agreements where they agree toprosecute scammers who target consumers acrosscountry borders. However, without bilateral agreements
in place, national consumer protection authorities arelimited in the action they can pursue in the country thatthe scam originated. Even where jurisdiction does exist,
national consumer protection authorities often lackresources, which can limit their ability to investigate
cross-border scams where proving liability can bedifficult, expensive and time consuming.
Our research suggests that a high level of consumer
detriment is caused by a proportionally low number ofcriminals, who use social media to propagate scams
to a large global audience. So, on a positive note, when
scammers get caught it can have far reaching benefits
for consumers. One takedown of a botnet operation25 in
Canada resulted in a significant reduction in the numberof scams being reported.

•

Airbnb uses machine learning and predictive
analytics to evaluate hundreds of risk signals tooffer real-time detection of fake listings on its
platform, which it flags to prevent scams before
they can harm consumers. Airbnb also publishes
prominent warnings on its accommodation listing
pages on how to avoid scams.

22
23
24
25

‘About the TAG Certified Against Fraud Program’, Trustworthy Accountability Group‘eBay’s AI identified techniques to avoid credit card fraud’ The Paypers‘Google Says Gmail Now Blocks 99.9% of Spam and Phishing Emails’, Bleeping Computer
Bots are automated software that can carry out tasks on a large scale, in this case for the purposes of fraud.

			Consumers
International

Social media scams

17

Platform liability
There is fierce international debate around who is liable
for social media content and what actions should betaken to tackle it. Social media platforms often claimthat they are neutral intermediaries in an ecosystemcreated by their users, thereby denying responsibility
for content. However, there is growing pressure on
platforms to tackle fraudulent, illegal or harmful content- such as hate speech – as the potential implications
become more apparent.
The cross-border nature of social media platforms
complicates the matter. In most cases, platforms arebound by the law in the country that they are based,
but national laws vary. Most global social media
companies are based in the US, which means that they
adhere to US legal and regulatory structures26. The US
Constitution defends the right to free speech, which
affects its legislative approach to this matter.
The fact that platforms’ terms and conditions are
seldom tailored to other regions in which companies
operate, can have far-reaching implications forcross-border consumer protection. For example, in
US law27 most big platforms are protected by ‘safe
harbour’ provision that gives online platforms legal
immunity from most of the content posted by theirusers. This means that platforms are not liable for theactual content posted by third party users. European
legislation or voluntary agreements set-up between
enforcement agencies and platforms may place
responsibility on social media platforms to remove
harmful content once they have been notified throughnotice and action procedures28. The current approach
does not guarantee the same level of protection to
consumers regardless of their location, for example in
the instance that a consumer is targeted with a social
media scam that is originating in the US.
In the European Union (EU), consumer protection
legislation is particularly well developed and laws
relating to unfair commercial practices, transparency
of information and distance selling rules could beapplied in cases of social media scams. In recent years,
efforts have been made to align platforms’ terms ofservice with EU consumer protection rules after findingthat platforms were operating unfairly under EU law29.
For example, by excluding liability for negligence andreserving the right to change their terms and conditions
without notice. In 2016, the EU’s Consumer Protection

Cooperation Network reached an agreement withsocial media platforms including Facebook, Google
and Twitter to establish a ‘notice and action procedure’,
which allows European consumer protection authorities
to report and request the removal of illegal content,
including scams. The Commission also developed legal
guidance for social media platforms around how theyshould deal with detection, notification and removalof illegal content30. The effectiveness of these newprocedures is still being assessed31.

CASE STUDY:
VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS
The Anti-Fraud Centre of the Royal Mounted Police
in Canada has a voluntary agreement in place withsocial media platforms. It notifies them of fraudulent
activity, and the platform reviews ads and posts todecide if they are contrary to their terms of service.
Content that breaches codes can be removed.
Although the process works in a timely manner, it isunderstood that there is always the risk of scams
being re-posted, so efforts are ongoing.
There is also work at a national level to compel
platforms to take down offensive content, related toterrorist activity and content deemed harmful to children,
within a short time32. For example, in Germany, theNetwork Enforcement Law of 2018 allows social media
companies with over two million users to be fined up
to €50 million if they do not delete posts contravening
German hate speech law within 24 hours33. Legal actionin the UK recently forced Facebook to improve the way
it tackles scams, although changes will only benefit UK
users at this time.
Participants in our stakeholder workshop also
highlighted good practice that businesses can follow intackling harmful online content. For example, Google’s
page-level enforcement helping to protect consumers
from threats such as malware, advertising fraud andcontent scamming.

26 Riefa, Christine, Consumer Protection on Social Media Platforms Briefing note for Consumers International 201727 Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 states: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shallbe treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider”, ‘7 ways Protections foronline content are being eroded’
28 European Commission Workshop on Digital Platforms and Fundamental Rights,12 June 2017, BU-25 00/S1
29 Twitter Terms of Service, ; Instagram
30 ‘Illegal content on online platforms’, European Commission
31 ‘Social media companies need to do more to fully comply with EU consumer rules’ European Commission
32 ‘Platform Responsibility’, London School of Economics; ‘Social media companies should have a ‘duty of care’ towards kids’,
33 ‘Impact of social media and screen-use on young people’s health’, Science and Technology Committee UK Parliament			Consumers
International

Social media scams

18

CASE STUDY:MARTIN LEWIS VS FACEBOOKIn the UK, Martin Lewis, a well-known public figure
whose name and image appeared in thousands ofscam adverts on Facebook, settled out of court with theplatform after submitting a campaigning defamation
lawsuit (pledging any proceeds to charity).
Instead of going to court, Facebook and Martin Lewis
agreed a two-step action plan to fight against thisindustry wide problem.
Facebook is creating a new scam ad reporting tool for
UK Facebook users, and dedicated internal operations
teams to handle these reports, investigate trends andenforce against violating ads. This reporting tool will
help users easily and quickly flag ads they believe tobe scams violating Facebook’s Advertising Policies orother standards.

4.5

Consumer redress

At present, it is virtually impossible for consumers to
get their money back after they’ve been scammed asthey have essentially ‘agreed’ to hand over cash. With
fraudsters difficult to track down, reimbursement often
falls to financial service providers.
In some countries, advances are being made totackle this issue. For example, in the UK, Which? iscampaigning to make banks responsible for refunding
authorised payments (e.g. where consumers havebeen tricked into authorising a payment) in addition
to unauthorised payments.The Anti-Fraud Centre in
Canada also works with financial service providers torequest reimbursements in cases of fraud (see casestudy).

Facebook is also donating £3 million to UK charity
Citizens Advice to deliver a new Scams Action project34.
The project, when launched in 2019, aims to:••••

Increase public education and awareness about
digital scam ads
Build on existing work with partner organisations
Provide one-to-one tailored support though a phone
helpline and webchat to help people recognisescamsWork with victims of online scams who need help

CASE STUDY: REFUNDS FOR
COUNTERFIET GOODSCASE STUDY: GOOGLEENFORCEMENT POLICIESIn 2017, Google took down 3.2 billion ads, which
equates to 100 ads per second, 320,000 publishers,
90,000 websites and 700,000 mobile apps and has
developed page-level enforcement which is enabling
Google to remove more bad ads from more websites.
Page-level enforcement affects individual pages inviolation of Google’s AdSense Program Policies. This
includes ads for counterfeit goods, malware andphishing. Google also has a list of AdSense Program
Policies on prohibited content which includes thepromotion of content, products or services using false,
dishonest or deceptive claims (e.g. ‘Get Rich Quick’
schemes)35.

The Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre deals with consumer
complaints about websites selling counterfeit
or fraudulent goods. When a consumer files acomplaint, they must provide details of the goods,
website address, date and amount of purchase. If theAnti-Fraud Centre confirms that the goods are notauthentic it will relay the information to the credit cardcompany and issuing bank to assess other suspicious
charges on the retailer’s merchant account, while
the credit card company initiates a chargeback
or reimbursement to the consumer. This typicallyresults in the termination of the counterfeit retailer’smerchant account by the bank, so that the fraudster
can no longer process payments and the problem isdealt with at the source.

34 www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2019/01/martin-lewis-drops-lawsuit-as-facebook-agreed-to-donate-p3m-to-a/
35 Google AdSense help			Consumers
International

Social media scams

19

5. RECOMMENDATIONSThere are no easy solutions to fighting scams. However,
our research has identified good practice by somegovernment agencies, consumer protection authorities
and businesses that, if applied systematically,
could help to empower and protect consumers andenhance trust in social media platforms. Our key
recommendations are detailed below:

5.1 Developing consistent rules for
consumer protection
Solid foundations at national level
Those we interviewed agreed that consumer protection
legislation can be an effective tool to aid enforcement
against social media scams, enabling decisive action
by regulators and enforcement agencies. However,
our research shows that there are different levelsof protection in different countries and regions. For
example, the National Society for Consumer Protectionin Jordan and Consumers Lebanon claim that thelargest barrier to tackling social media scams in theircountries is the lack of consumer protection legislation.
Consistent, legally-binding consumer protection rules
could help to establish a baseline of good practice indealing with social media scams, from liability throughto enforcement.
International guidance and cooperation
Given the cross-border nature of social media scams,
and online fraud in general, it is essential that national
consumer protection legislation is complemented
by international cross-border cooperation, including
intelligence sharing and agreements to prosecute
scammers that operate across national borders.
International guidelines can provide valuableguidance for consumer protection authorities. For
example, the United Nations Conference on Tradeand Development (UNCTAD) and the Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)are driving initiatives to improve the regulation of
e-commerce, including developing guidelines. The
International Consumer Protection Enforcement
Network (ICPEN) also promotes co-operation between
national enforcement agencies. Several countries
have made proposals to start formal negotiations
for an international e-commerce trade deal, which
could include measures to promote better consumer
protection needed to help address the gaps.

			Consumers
International

5.2 Increasing responsibility for social
media platforms
Self-regulation
Social media platforms have a responsibility to protect
consumers by taking swift and effective action against
fraudulent users, accounts, posts and advertisements.
The consumer protection authorities and consumer
organisations we interviewed, agree that social media
platforms should take more decisive action to tackle
fraudulent, harmful or illegal content on their platforms.
This should include:••••

Setting rules – clear terms and conditions about
what is and isn’t allowed on the platform
Reporting of scams - making it easy for users toflag harmful content
Taking action against those that break the rules– e.g. removing content, blocking accounts andbarring users
Minimising future risks – mechanisms in place
to prevent reappearance of same or similar
content e.g. monitoring content or taking steps toauthenticate traders, websites and adverts

The largest social media platforms are global in nature,but often operate differently in different countries, as
demonstrated in the Facebook case study in Section
4.4, where planned improvements will only apply in the
UK. As scams operate cross-border, platforms should
standardise their systems, policies and procedures,
where possible, across different countries so that all
consumers benefit from the same measures.
Voluntary agreements
As described in Section 4.4, there is currently noclear legal liability over social media content, which
can restrict progress. In the absence of statutory
guidance, some consumer protection authorities (forexample in Europe and Canada) have reached voluntaryagreements with platforms - they notify the platformof harmful content and it commits to investigate andremove the content if necessary. It will be important tomonitor these agreements to see if they are operating
effectively and, if so, more voluntary agreements should
be explored.

Social media scams

20

5.3

Defining good practice for business

Policies and procedures

5.4 Exploring the potential of digital
tools to detect fraudBusinesses such as financial service providers,
online retailers and intermediary sites have a roleto play in protecting their customers from scams,
which will also help to enhance their reputation andboost consumer confidence in their brand. Where
fraudsters impersonate brands in impostor scams, thegenuine business should be quick to respond to alert
consumers to the scam and provide reassurance andadvice on what action to take.

Algorithms to identify online fraud

Financial service providers, as the custodians ofconsumer cash, are in an ideal position to raiseawareness of current scams and minimise the riskof fraudulent transactions. In the UK, consumer andindustry experts have successfully developed a code ofpractice to help banks develop policies and procedures
to minimise the risk of consumer harm as a result offraud and financial abuse.  

Although not 100% effective, algorithms can certainly
help to reduce the risk of social media scams
spreading on platforms. Some of the experts weinterviewed stressed that AI-enabled tools alone are
not capable of identifying all scams and should be
used in conjunction with human moderators to check,verify and block harmful scam content. Developing
algorithms to monitor social media content and identify
the perpetrators of fraud is an area that Consumers
International is keen to explore further.

Steps are also being taken by financial institutions andconsumer protection authorities to build a picture offraudulent merchant activity. These initiatives provide
increased protection for consumers who have been
defrauded through social media, providing a way to gettheir money back and shut down counterfeit retailers’bank accounts.
International standards
Voluntary standards, developed by expert working
groups, can help businesses by defining good practicein the delivery of online services, systems and goods.
As social media scams operate across geographicalboundaries, international standards and codes will havethe greatest impact.
The International Standards Organization (ISO)publishes specifications and guidelines to ensure
quality and safety for consumers. ISO standards
already exist for e-commerce, mobile payments, online
reviews and internet security – to protect consumers
against phishing and malware. International experts
are currently developing new standards in the area of‘Privacy by Design’ and the sharing economy. To date,
we are not aware of any standards that tackle social
media platforms specifically, or the legitimacy of online
advertisements.
A new global standard detailing good practice forsocial media platforms could help to secure online
marketplaces and provide assurances to consumers.

			Consumers
International

The ability to identify and block fraudulent content
before it reaches consumers could be a huge step
forward in the fight against scams. Digital solutions,such as algorithmically-driven artificial intelligence (AI)  
systems and machine learning, are already being usedwith some success to tackle online fraud in a broader
context (see section 4.3).

Authentication of ‘legitimate’ businesses and ads
Our research found that impostor and e-commerce
scams are the most prevalent types of scam on social
media. Therefore, the ability to identify authentic
business accounts and advertisements is important for
consumers and solutions should be explored. Systems
for trader or website verification, such as that being
developed by the Ecommerce Foundation (see casestudy in Section 4.3) could be one answer.
Criminals often use malicious or fraudulent ads toperpetrate social media scams but, at present, anyone
can advertise on social media as long as they follow theterms and conditions set by platforms, and there arevery few mechanisms in place to distinguish between
fraudulent and legitimate traders.
Experts we interviewed agreed that businesses wishingto advertise on social media platforms should undergoa greater level of authentication to establish theirlegitimacy. Digital identification tools could help todo this, playing a crucial role in the multi-stakeholder
response to fraudulent ads on social media.
Considerable efforts have been made by a range ofadvertisers, major brands and industry groups, such as
TAG to develop such tools (see case study in Section
4.3).
Free ad-blocker software, such as Adblock Plus, canhelp consumers to filter and block domains and ads
that may spread malware by selecting preferences frompre-defined criteria. Exploring ways to link ad-blocker
filter lists  to businesses and advertisers that have been‘authenticated’ using digital identification systems,
could give consumers the option to block social media
ad content from unauthenticated sources in future.

Social media scams

21

5.5 Facilitating consistentand effective reporting
Detailed information about the scale and natureof online scams is crucial to inform strategies forpreventative and remedial action. But our researchshows that scam reporting at a global level isfragmented, inconsistent and unreliable. Improvements
could be made in four key areas:•

There is a need to address the low levels of scam
reporting. Consumer education to ‘normalise’scams could help to overcome the stigma wrongly
attached to it. Consumers need to understand thatanyone can be a victim of a scam and that reporting
it quickly could benefit others. To facilitate this,victims need clear, timely information about where
to report scams and submit complaints. Social
media platforms must make it easy for consumers
to flag scams, and other harmful content. For
example, Facebook’s UK operations are developing
a new ‘scam ads’ reporting tool as part of a legal
settlement (see case study in Section 4.4).

•

Comprehensive data collection systems need
to be in place to record and analyse all online
scam incidents, including their channels of origin.
Although a single point of data collection for fraudin each country would be ideal, it is recognisedthat multiple organisations might deal with scam
reports. To facilitate sharing of insight, between
national and global agencies, classification of data
should be consistent.

•

If consumers can see evidence that reporting leads
to positive action, in the form of enforcement andredress, this will help to build trust in the system.

5.6

Improving stakeholder cooperation

Establishing better collaboration and cooperation
between all stakeholders at a global level is essential toproviding an effective solution to the growing problem
of social media scams. Improved communication
between enforcement agencies would facilitate thesharing of insight and intelligence to focus resources inareas that they are needed most.
Government agencies, consumer protection authorities
and social media platforms can also work together to
identify threats and make sure that scam victims haveaccess to appropriate support and remedial action.
For example, we found good practice of banks working
with credit companies to ensure that consumers can bereimbursed when they’ve lost money to a social media
scam.

			
Consumers
International

5.7

Raising consumer awarenessEncouraging conversations around scams ishugely important, as one of the greatest barriers tounderstanding and preventing social media scams
is the reluctance to report. Consumer education
campaigns play a central role and can significantly
reduce the number of victims and level of detriment.
Information should focus on:•••

Recognising scams – up-to-date information about
how to spot scams, the latest scams to watch out
for and potential risks
Preventing scams – how to protect themselves
online and what action to take if they spot a scam
Reporting scams – consumers need clear advice
on where to report scams and why this is important

Consumer organisations, consumer protection
authorities, enforcement agencies, private sector
organisations, such as banks, and social media
platforms themselves, have a shared responsibility
for educating consumers. These organisations needto think about the best way to target consumers andensure the right information reaches the right people
at the right time. This might include creative use ofsocial media, and other channels, to share information.
As illustrated by the Spanish police (see Section 4.1),
engagement beyond simple warnings and news
articles can be successful in normalising the issue andencouraging other victims of social media scams tohave the confidence to report their experiences.

Central to protecting
consumers
internationally, is a solid
foundation of consumer
protection legislation ata national level, which
establishes clear rules
and responsibilities for
effective monitoring andenforcement.

Social media scams

22

6. CONCLUSION
Social media scams present an increasing threat to
global consumers and complex challenges to those
involved in consumer protection. Tackling this growing
form of sophisticated consumer detriment requires amultifaceted, collaborative and innovative approach.
Central to protecting consumers internationally, is asolid foundation of consumer protection legislation
at a national level, which establishes clear rules
and responsibilities for effective monitoring andenforcement.
Our study shows that the consumer experience ofsocial media scams varies by country, so national
consumer protection authorities and governments
must take local differences into account whendeveloping strategies to tackle the issues.
However, it is essential that the bigger picture is taken
into account. Social media scams are omnipresent
and dynamic in nature, operating across national
borders. To ensure the greatest benefits for consumers,
solutions must also adopt a cross-border approach.
When it comes to tracking down criminals thatperpetrate scams on social media and enforcing thelaw, international cooperation and collaboration is
crucial to ensure a consistent approach and sharing
of intelligence. Voluntary agreements between
stakeholders also help to set clear rules in terms ofdetecting, preventing and responding to scams.

Social media platforms, where interactions take place,are in the most powerful position to deliver positivechange for consumers. Platforms need to takegreater responsibility for consumer protection and beproactive rather than reactive. This commitment can bedemonstrated by having secure systems, policies andprocedures in place to minimise, detect and respond to
fraud.
Innovative technological solutions are vital to keep up
with the fast pace of change. Artificial intelligence anddigital tools have great potential to protect consumers
by authenticating sources and identifying harmful
content and options should be explored. As social
media platforms and online marketplaces evolve, these
digital safeguards should be built-in to ensure that
consumer safety is inherent in system design.
Underpinning everything is a shared responsibility toraise consumer awareness and remove the misplaced
stigma currently attached to scams. Social media
scams are a crime and consumers must be encouraged
to report them as such.
As social media continues to grow in size and influence,
it is increasingly important that consumer protection
is at the heart of platform design and delivery. To
address global challenges, those tasked with consumer
protection must work together to drive improvements,
minimise detriment and build a secure digital world that
consumers can trust.

International standards could be a valuable tool intackling global online fraud, detailing good practice forsocial media platforms and other businesses about
how to identify, and respond to, harmful content.
Standards already exist in the digital space, but thepotential for new standards should be explored.

Social media
scams are acrime and
consumers must
be encouraged toreport them as
such.

			
Consumers
International

Social media scams

23

7. Appendix
Country
Nigeria
US
UK
Spain
Argentina
Chile
India
Saudi Arabia
Egypt

Population

Social media
users

186M
327.7M
65.6M
45.6M
43.9M
17.9M
1.3B
32.3M
95.7M

19M
190M
38.5M
27.M
24.2M
13M
283.8M
18.1M
32.1M

Scam
conversation
volume144.5K
1.3M
188.9K
51.4K
40.7K
9.3K
63.7K
4.3K
1.9K

Scam mentions per
social media user*
0.76%
0.66%
0.49%
0.19%
0.17%
0.07%
0.02%
0.02%
0.01%

Notes: Table sorted by scam conversation volumes by social media user (* scam conversation volume divided bynumber of social media users) B=billion, M=million, K=thousand			Consumers
International

Social media scams

24Consumers International brings together over 200 member organisations inmore than 100 countries to empower and champion the rights of consumers
everywhere. We are their voice in international policy-making forums and theglobal marketplace to ensure they are treated safely, fairly and honestly.
Consumers International is a charity (No.1122155) and a not-for-profit company
limited by guarantee (No. 04337865) registered in England and Wales.

			Consumers
International

consumersinternational.org@consumers_int/consumersinternational
Social media scams

25