Scammers stole record-breaking $12.5B from Americans in 2024, FTC says
Well-versed online crooks, con artists and fraudsters snagged $12.5 billion from unwitting consumers in 2024, setting yet another record, according to the latest data released Monday by the Federal Trade Commission.
The total dollars lost was 25% higher than reported losses in 2023 when the old record was set at more than $10 billion lost to scammers.
It's not that consumers are reporting more scams, according to the FTC. Fraud reports remained stable. Instead, consumers are reporting losing more money.
In 2024, some 38% of consumers reported losing money to fraud and scams. That's up from 27% in 2023, according to the latest Consumer Sentinel Network Data Book.
Nearly half of the dollars lost — some $5.7 billion — involved money that consumers lost to investment scams, the single largest scam last year. That is a 24% jump from 2023.
The median loss involving investment scams was more than $9,000.
Consumers reported losing more money to scams where they paid with bank transfers or cryptocurrency than all other payment methods combined. People reported losing $2 billion via bank transfer or payment and $1.4 billion was lost via cryptocurrency.
Consumers made 2.6 million fraud reports nationwide in 2024 to various agencies, roughly the same number as 2023, according to the latest Consumer Sentinel Network Data Book.
The Consumer Sentinel Network is managed by the FTC but compiles consumer complaints from a variety of sources, including the AARP Fraud Watch Network, United Parcel Service, the Better Business Bureau, the Michigan Attorney General and other AGs across the country, Publishers Clearing House, the Microsoft Corp. Cyber Crime Center, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. More than 20 states contribute data to Sentinel.
Unfortunately, consumers are being hit at every turn by one scam or another. Scammers reach out through emails, phone calls and texts.
Michigan consumers reported losses totaling $204 million to all types of fraud in 2024. That's up from $151.7 million in 2023. The median loss was $305 in 2024.
Younger consumers are kidding themselves if they think that only seniors lose money to these outlandish schemes.
While seniors tend to lose the most money, younger consumers are falling victim to scams, too.
The FTC's data book this year included a new dashboard showing more detail on fraud reports received for each state broken down by age. Not every report received by consumer watchdogs includes an age for the person filing the report but many reports disclose that information.
The $204 million overall figure for Michigan's reported fraud includes money lost by many consumers who did not report their age.
Looking closely at the information by age category for Michigan, though, we can see that nearly $45.9 million was reported lost to scams and fraud by Michigan consumers ages 60 and older.
Nearly $40.7 million was reported lost to scams and fraud by Michigan consumers ages 59 and younger.
In Michigan, for example, the data indicated that 4,339 reports about fraud and scams were made last year by consumers in the 30- to 39-year-old age bracket. Total losses reported by that group of Michigan consumers was about $8.6 million. The median loss was $309.
Among Michigan consumers ages 80 and older nearly $6.1 million was reported lost to scams. But the median loss was the highest of any age group at $2,228 for those 80 and older. Consumer watchdogs received 1,310 reports about scams from Michigan consumers ages 80 and older.
The biggest total dollars lost and the most reports of fraud — 5,510 — involved Michigan consumers in the 60- to 69-year-old age group. The total reported losses in that age group was a bit more than $24 million. The median loss was $498 in 2024.
The top five scams reported by Michigan consumers involved situations where crooks impersonated a well-known business; offered bogus deals to online shoppers; pretended to be someone from an official government agency; made phony promises involving fake sweepstakes, prizes and lotteries, and pitched scams involving fake jobs and employment agencies.
"Scammers' tactics are constantly evolving,' warned Christopher Mufarrige, director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, in a statement.
Regularly, we're being warned to think twice before trusting the person who reached out to us.
Nationwide, the second highest reported dollar losses involved some type of imposter scam, with $2.95 billion reported lost across the country.
Scammers are impersonating local law enforcement by calling or emailing consumers about jury duty. They're demanding that consumers pay up because the consumer somehow missed showing up for jury duty.
The crooks are either out to get your money on a gift card or via cryptocurrency. Or they want to get your Social Security number or other personal information.
No government agency is going to call you out of the blue and demand you pay any fine. And they're not asking that you send crypto or buy gift cards.
When it comes to government imposter scams, according to the FTC's Consumer Sentinel Network, crooks are most likely to ask you to pay money by putting cash on a gift card and reading back numbers to them.
Be careful when you pick up the phone. People lost more money per person — a median loss of $1,500 — when they interacted with scammers on the phone, according to the FTC.
You're most likely to be contacted by phone when crooks impersonate federal, state and local government agencies. Crooks frequently impersonate the Social Security Administration, Medicare, the US Postal Service, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Federal Trade Commission and the Internal Revenue Service.
The median reported loss to an IRS impersonation scam was $319, according to FTC data. Some $9.14 million was lost to IRS impersonation scams in 2024.
The median loss to a Social Security impersonation scam was $1,200 last year. Some $130.76 million was lost to scammers impersonating Social Security employees in 2024, according to the latest FTC data.
The median loss was $3,040 to impersonation scams when crooks pretended to be from a local police department, sheriff's office or the FBI. Some $18.8 million was lost to those scams.
More: Just lost your job? Watch out for the con artists who target people who are out of work
More: IRS identifies most dangerous tax scams that can delay your refund. Here are 5 to avoid
More: Cash, bitcoin, gold scams in metro Detroit send couriers, directions to ATMs
Scammers know that people who are searching for work can be tricked into responding to a text about a promising paycheck.
The latest data showed that consumers nationwide made 104,926 reports in 2024 involving a subcategory called "job scams and employment agencies." In all, $501 million was reported lost to job-related scams. The median amount lost by consumers was $2,400 in 2024 to such scams.
That's up substantially from the previous year when 68,469 total reports were made by consumers about job scams and employment agencies. In 2023, consumers reported losing $238 million to such scams, with the median loss hitting $2,004 for individuals.
Consumers can report scams to the Michigan Attorney General's consumer protection division. The address to mail a complaint is: Consumer Protection Team; P.O. Box 30213; Lansing, MI 48909. The toll free number is 877-765-8388. New consumer complaints can also be made online. See Michigan.gov/ag for information.
Consumers can make complaints at ReportFraud.ftc.gov where they also will receive information about some steps on how to possibly try to recover their money. These reports are a vital part of the agency's law enforcement mission and also help the FTC to warn consumers about fraud trends in the data.
The FTC uses the reports it receives through the Sentinel network as the starting point for many law enforcement investigations. Reports are shared with federal, state and local law enforcement.
Contact personal finance columnist Susan Tompor: stompor@freepress.com. Follow her on X @tompor.
This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Consumers lose even more money to scams, as investment scams spike
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Omnicom Group Inc.'s (OMC) $13 Billion Deal with IPG Under Investigation Over Political Bias Concerns
Omnicom Group Inc. (NYSE:OMC) is one of the . Back in December 2024, Omnicom Group Inc. (NYSE:OMC) announced its plan to acquire The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc., which is a leader in the advertising and marketing services sector. The planned merger is valued at over $13 billion through an all-stock transaction, possibly making the merged entity one of the largest advertising groups globally with annual revenue exceeding $25 billion. Omnicom Group Inc. (NYSE:OMC) continues to be considered one of the best advertising agency stocks to buy right now. However, on June 12, 2025, it was reported that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will review the merged entity of Omnicom Group and The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. (NYSE:IPG), and may restrict it from withholding ad placements on media platforms for political purposes. This move is attributed to corporate America's political biases, which fuel concerns about fairness and competition in the digital market. Thus, this step may result in a delay of the M&A process for Omnicom Group Inc. (NYSE:OMC). Based in New York City, OMC is a global media, marketing, and corporate communications holding company. Its main segments include advertising, customer relationship management, public relations, and specialty services. While we acknowledge the potential of OMC as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: 10 Undervalued Quantum Computing Stocks to Buy Now and 10 Low Risk High Reward Stocks Set to Triple by 2030. Disclosure: None. Sign in to access your portfolio
CNBC
2 days ago
- CNBC
Walmart to pay $10 million to settle lawsuit over money transfer fraud
Walmart has agreed to pay $10 million to settle a U.S. Federal Trade Commission civil lawsuit accusing the world's largest retailer of ignoring warning signs that fraudsters used its money transfer services to fleece consumers out of hundreds of millions of dollars. The settlement was filed on Friday in Chicago federal court, and requires approval by U.S. District Judge Manish Shah. Walmart also agreed not to process money transfers it suspects are fraudulent, or help sellers and telemarketers it believes are using its services to commit fraud. "Electronic money transfers are one of the most common ways that scammers tell consumers to send them money, because once it's sent, it's gone for good," said Christopher Mufarrige, director of the FTC consumer protection bureau. "Companies that provide these services must train their employees to comply with the law and work to protect consumers." The Bentonville, Arkansas-based retailer did not admit or deny wrongdoing in agreeing to settle. Walmart did not immediately respond to requests for comment. In its June 2022 complaint, the FTC accused Walmart of turning a blind eye to fraudsters who used its money transfer services to cash out at its stores. Walmart acts as an agent for money transfers by companies such as MoneyGram, Ria and Western Union. Money can be hard to trace once delivered. The FTC said fraudsters used many schemes that included impersonating Internal Revenue Service agents, impersonating family members who needed money from grandparents to avoid jail, and telling victims they won lotteries or sweepstakes but owed fees to collect their winnings. Shah dismissed part of the FTC case last July but let the regulator pursue the remainder. Walmart appealed from that decision. Friday's settlement would end the appeal. The case is .
The Verge
2 days ago
- The Verge
Inside the courthouse reshaping the future of the internet
The future of the internet will be determined in one building in Washington, DC — and for six weeks, I watched it unfold. For much of this spring, the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse in downtown Washington, DC, was buzzing with lawyers, reporters, and interested onlookers jostling between dimly lit courtrooms that hosted everyone from the richest men in Silicon Valley to fired federal workers and the DOGE-aligned officials who terminated them. The sprawling courthouse, with an airy atrium in the middle and long, dark halls that spring from it, is where cases involving government agencies often land, and that meant it was hosting two of the most consequential tech cases in the country, all while fielding a flurry of unprecedented lawsuits against President Donald Trump's administration. Between mid-April and late May, Judges James Boasberg and Amit Mehta respectively oversaw FTC v. Meta and US v. Google, a pair of long-running antitrust lawsuits that seek to split up two titans of Silicon Valley. Over the same period, several DC judges — including Boasberg — had a full docket of cases related to Trump's first 100 days in office, covering the administration's attempt to mass-deport immigrants, strip security clearance from law firms, and fire thousands of federal workers. On the first day of the Google trial, a sign with a comically contorted arrow directed visitors toward their chosen antitrust case. It was soon joined by directions to the high-profile hearing over Trump's order against law firm Jenner & Block. While the FTC's lawyers were calling witnesses against Meta in one courtroom, a nearby room was hosting arguments about whether Trump could fire two of the agency's own commissioners. My colleagues gathered around the feed waiting for a Google witness, only to see a prison-jumpsuited defendant step into the box For reporters, the weeks were an exercise in constant case-juggling. During the overlap of Google and Meta, I'd arrive to long security lines that would sometimes jut into the small park that adjoins the courthouse, waiting to hunt down a media room that streamed video for reporters and avoid the electronics-free courtrooms. I'd occasionally show up to find out no such room existed, and in a small stampede of reporters, I'd rush up a few flights of spiral stairs to the courtroom, scribbling handwritten notes from the back rows. One day, my colleagues gathered around the feed waiting for a Google witness, only to see a prison-jumpsuited defendant step into the box — in the brief moment before reporters realized Mehta was taking a quick break for a criminal hearing, they wondered which high-profile tech executive it was. The executives, for their part, were plentiful. On one day a witness box saw Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg praising Instagram's success; a week later, former colleague and Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom sat there describing him as a jealous boss. Google CEO Sundar Pichai would soon testify a couple floors up, followed by executives at some of Google's biggest rivals, including Microsoft and OpenAI. For all of them, the stakes were high. Judge Boasberg is tasked with determining whether Meta built an illegal monopoly by gobbling up Instagram and WhatsApp, while Judge Mehta will decide whether Google must spin off its Chrome browser or syndicate its search data. For the judges, the gauntlet seemed nothing short of exhausting. Boasberg, chief judge of the US District Court in DC, had been assigned to the Meta case long before Trump took office, but after the inauguration, he became one of the busiest judges in America — overseeing a challenge of the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport migrants, and a lawsuit over Trump's cabinet's use of encrypted messaging app Signal to communicate about attack plans. As I concluded a day of the Meta trial at 5PM, a fresh crop of reporters arrived to cover Boasberg's consideration of the Alien Enemies Act, which Trump was using to deport Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador. Outside the courtroom, Boasberg fielded attacks from Trump — who labeled him a 'Radical Left Lunatic' and a 'troublemaker and agitator' and called for his impeachment. At the Meta trial, Boasberg appeared even-keeled — sometimes to the point of boredom. He rarely mentioned the rest of his docket beyond subtle references to his overflowing schedule; his interventions were astute, signaling a deep understanding of the case. But he'd often sit with his head in his hand, only occasionally gently encouraging attorneys to move on from a particularly tedious line of questioning. He used a lunch break in the Meta trial to file one of the most scathing legal rulings of the early Trump administration, accusing the administration of 'willful disregard' for his temporary restraining order on deportation flights to El Salvador, with 'probable cause' to find it in criminal contempt. By the Meta trial's end in late May, Boasberg sounded relieved as the final day wrapped. 'I will take a welcome respite from thinking about this between now and when the first brief is due,' he told the attorneys. In 1998, the E. Barrett Prettyman courthouse played host to another tech giant fighting for its life: Microsoft. US v. Microsoft was a landmark monopoly case that determined the company had illegally wielded its dominance over Intel-compatible PC operating systems to tamp down threats to its monopoly, including up-and-coming web browsers like Netscape. But in the wake of that case and subsequent settlement, regulators took a hands-off approach to the next generation of tech companies. It would take two decades for the government to return to the battleground — until 2020, when the cases against Meta and Google were filed. The search and social networking landscape has changed dramatically in the last five years, with the rise of TikTok and generative AI. But so too has the zeitgeist around tech. As Silicon Valley remains politically embattled, the goal of more aggressive antitrust enforcement has won bipartisan support. At the same time, there's a growing fear of foreign competition, particularly from TikTok, which appeared in the very same courthouse last year to argue against a (since-delayed) nationwide ban. The company found itself back there as a witness during Meta's trial, where lawyers confronted a TikTok executive with statements made during its failed 2024 fight. Those weeks of courthouse testimony helped illuminate countless decisions that made the tech world as we know it Inside the courthouse, it was easy to forget about everything else going on in Washington — until it wasn't. I was removed from the day-to-day antics of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) hacking away at the federal workforce, but the cases about its handiwork — including gutting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) — kept winding through court. During a break on the fourth day of Meta's trial and days before the start of Google's, I got a New York Times push notification walking back from the bathroom, telling me Virginia Judge Leonie Brinkema had ruled against Google in the DOJ's separate ad-tech antitrust case. I hustled back to the media room and found several of my colleagues from other outlets already in the hallway writing up their stories. Of course, we commiserated, a decision we expected months ago would drop right now. Rulings in this spring's Google and Meta trials will likely take months to arrive, and their fallout probably won't be seen for years. But those weeks of courthouse testimony helped illuminate countless decisions that made the tech world as we know it. During the early 2010s, Facebook executives expressed fears that Google might buy WhatsApp and bundle it with Android, giving itself a stranglehold over mobile messaging. With the context of the Google trial, that fear looks prescient — the company cemented its search dominance by making Android phone makers preinstall its search engine in the same way. It's also possible to see the shape of giants yet to rise. Should Judge Mehta order Google to sell Chrome, several witnesses said they'd be more than happy to buy it, including Yahoo, Perplexity, and OpenAI. The Justice Department's landmark antitrust trial against Microsoft is widely credited with opening up the tech industry for innovative players like Google, and a quarter-century later, there's hope something similar could happen for new companies today. Yet it seems equally possible that in another decade or two, we'll be back in this same courthouse, hearing the government argue they've nailed the doors shut once again.
