Hijacking Trust: How Scammers Exploit the Banking System’s Most Valuable Asset - Bank Policy Institute
Banking depends on trust—and so do the scam tactics that criminals use to target millions of consumers nationwide. According to the Federal Trade Commission, consumerslost$3. 5 billion to impostor scams,. . .
Banking depends on trust—and so do the scam tactics that criminals use to target millions of consumers nationwide. According to the Federal Trade Commission, consumerslost$3. 5 billion to impostor scams, including bank impersonation scams, last year alone. The sequence is simple and the damage devastating. For example, you look at your phone and see a text that appears to be from your bank’s fraud department. After all, it comes from your bank’s phone number and uses your bank’s logo. You click the link. And then, before you realize it’s a scam, a criminal has access to your account and everything in it. Behind these scams are sophisticated criminals who employ tactics designed to exploit trust. They may create fake websites or social media ads, spoofed calls and texts or phony profiles or email addresses of trusted bank executives. Social engineering tactics may create a sense of false urgency and prevent consumers from taking time to second-guess the scam. And, increasingly, AI may enhance the personalization and amplify the scale of these scams. A BPI member bank survey sheds further light on how these bank impersonation scams reach consumers. Bank impersonation scams are becoming more widespread, convincing and devastating every year. Banks invest millions in preventing, monitoring and mitigating scams, but they can’t solve the problem alone. Policymakers—as well as the social media, digital advertising and telecom platforms transmitting impersonation scams—must take immediate action to protect consumers from this growing threat. Explore the bank impersonation scam survey results with BPI’s infographichere. Survey TakeawaysOur survey asked BPI member banks about the number of bank impersonation scams they identified in 2024 and 2025, the transmission channel of these scams (e. g. , telecom, social media or digital advertising) and the time it took for the transmission channel to take down the scam once requested by the bank. [1]The survey found that bank impersonation scams are surging: the average number of identified scams per bank increased 150 percent from 2024 to 2025. Surveyed banks reported an average of 26,196 such scams in 2025. Surveyed banks further reported that bank impersonation scams ranked as the second-highest scam type by volume in 2025. The survey also examines where scams originate and spread. Telecom networks—texts and calls—are a primary vector for these scams, increasing 124 percent from 2024 to 2025. Bank impersonation scams originating on social media are increasing and have more than doubled year over year. Our survey also shows that bank impersonation scams take many forms beyond imitating the bank brand itself. Scammers often impersonate specific bank branches or representatives—for example, in a text message faking a fraud alert. They also imitate senior executives at specific institutions—for example, fake ads with images of bank executives giving investment advice, or fake email accounts being created in executives’ names. Banks monitor and report these scams to the platforms transmitting them, but the platforms are not always responsive. The survey found that, on average in 2025, social media companies took nearly two weeks to remove organic bank impersonation scam content on their platforms (e. g. , fake profiles of bank executives or bank brands, rather than paid content like advertisements). On average, social media platforms did not even respond to over 20 percent of takedown requests for this type of scam in 2025. The survey does indicate that takedown response time is faster for paid digital advertising, but this still reflects a system failure—with proper “Know Your Customer” controls, scam ads shouldn’t be going live in the first place. Policy SolutionsImpersonation scams work because they exploit trust in legitimate institutions, whether banks or government agencies like the IRS or law enforcement. Policymakers must protect that trust by requiring telecom, social media and digital advertising platforms to work proactively to verify users and advertisers, remove fake ads and prevent phone and text spoofing. The solution starts with upstream authentication and verification on channels where scams spread. Spoofing is a key tool for scammers to build trust. For example, two surveyed banks reported that 40 percent of calls appearing to originate from their bank-owned numbers had been spoofed by criminals. Bank customers should be able to trust what their caller ID shows; policymakers should continue efforts to curb illegal calls and texts. Social media and technology platforms likewise should be required to verify advertisers and to take fake ads down quickly once verified fraud is reported. The solution must involve faster takedown times. A major challenge: the speed at which scammers siphon money from customers outpaces the speed at which scam content is taken down. To protect consumers, industry must match scammers’ rapid speed and take down fraudulent content more quickly. The solution requires partnership across industries, among government agencies and between the public and private sectors. All banks surveyed by BPI have engaged in partnerships with telecom, social media or digital advertising platforms to mitigate fraud and scams. Unfortunately, incentives may be misaligned—social mediaplatformsearn profits from fake ads staying online, and telecom providers benefit financially from each call or text, as well as spoof protection services. Furthermore, some platforms appear to see anti-scam partnerships as a business opportunity more than a consumer protection responsibility: more than half (55 percent) of banks responding to BPI’s survey said platforms attempted to sell them products or data when the bank attempted to develop fraud/scam mitigation measures in direct partnership with the platform. Meanwhile, banks are investing significantly in prevention and detection, spending millions of dollars every year to identify scams that platforms themselves let through. We are learning how these partnerships can work. The most effective partnerships between banks and tech platforms rest on clear, standardized channels to report scams and escalate problems. BPI has also called on policymakersto enable data sharing across sectors so that banks and other industry partners can share threat information in real time. Finally, the solution requires government action. [2]To hold tech and telecom companies accountable for scam prevention, policymakers must subject them to legal requirements and enforce those laws and regulations. Congress recently introduced the bipartisanSCAM Act, aimed at tackling malvertising and other impersonation scams. The Federal Communications Commission has taken helpful actions recently to beef up “Know Your Customer” requirements for telecom providers and to crack down on scam calls. [3]The FTC should use its consumer protection authorities over tech and social media firms to hold them accountable for scams. The FTC also should consider broadening its prohibition on impersonating government agencies, law enforcement and businesses to encompass impersonation of individuals, as well as providing the “means and instrumentalities” for impersonation. In general, government agencies should collaborate to ensure a whole-of-government approach to combating impersonation scams—more centralized reporting, fewer silos. Government and the private sector must unite to prevent scammers from exploiting trust with impunity. Only proactive, collaborative steps by the platforms where impersonation scams reach consumers—underpinned by sound policy changes—can restore that trust. [1]Survey respondents comprise 14 BPI member banks of varying sizes, ranging from over $1 trillion in assets to approximately $100 billion in assets, accounting for a significant share of banking industry assets. Responses therefore provide valuable insights into the scope and scale of the issue, as well as the trends banks are seeing nationwide. [2]According to a Stop Scams Alliance/Gallup survey, the vast majority of U. S. adults (82%) believe the government is doing too little to prevent scams. Stop Scams Alliance and Gallup, The United States of Scams: The Financial and Emotional Fallout (June 30, 2026),available atUnited States of Scams The Financial and Emotional Fallout, 31. [3]BPI supports the FCC’s recent proposals to combat illegal calls. For example, seehttps://bpi. com/trades-support-fcc-effort-to-strengthen-know-your-customer-safeguards-on-telecom-providers/.