According to Dark Reading, text scam losses reported to the Federal Trade Commission reached $470 million in 2024, representing a fivefold increase from 2020 levels. The Aspen Policy Academy has launched the Cyber Civic Engagement program, backed by Craig Newmark Philanthropies, to train community cybersecurity advocates and improve communication with government leaders. Betsy Cooper, the academy’s founding director, emphasized that government intervention is crucial for prevention, particularly regarding regulations around fraudulent Google ads. Allison Pytlak of the Stimson Center described the current government approach as “fragmented,” noting that traditional law enforcement lacks proper training for scam response, while FTC data shows the problem has reached a “tipping point” with significant financial impacts prompting calls for a whole-of-society approach.
Sponsored content — provided for informational and promotional purposes.
The Economic Imperative Behind Scam Proliferation
The staggering $470 million in reported text scam losses represents just the tip of the iceberg in a sophisticated criminal economy. What makes this business model particularly resilient is its low-risk, high-reward structure. Scammers operate with minimal consequences while leveraging digital infrastructure that costs pennies to maintain. The FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center data consistently shows that investment fraud and business email compromise generate even larger losses, indicating a mature criminal ecosystem with multiple revenue streams. Unlike traditional crime that requires physical presence, digital scams scale infinitely with near-zero marginal cost, creating an economic incentive structure that’s virtually impossible to disrupt through conventional law enforcement alone.
Systemic Regulatory Gaps Enable Criminal Enterprise
The fragmentation in government response creates regulatory arbitrage opportunities that scammers expertly exploit. When financial institutions, telecommunications providers, and digital platforms operate in separate regulatory silos, criminals can pivot across jurisdictional boundaries with impunity. The fundamental business problem isn’t just about individual scams—it’s about the absence of coordinated liability across the scam chain. Banks process fraudulent transactions, telecom carriers deliver scam messages, and digital platforms host fraudulent advertisements, yet none bear proportional responsibility for the ecosystem they enable. This creates a classic market failure where the social costs of fraud are externalized to consumers while profits flow to both legitimate businesses and criminals alike.
Strategic Opportunities in Fraud Prevention
For forward-thinking companies, the scam epidemic represents both a responsibility and a market opportunity. The same technological advancements that enable sophisticated scams—particularly AI-powered social engineering—can be leveraged for detection and prevention. We’re seeing emerging business models around behavioral analytics, transaction monitoring, and digital identity verification that could transform consumer protection from a cost center to a competitive advantage. Financial institutions that develop superior fraud detection capabilities could potentially command premium pricing or reduce customer churn. Similarly, technology platforms that solve the verification problem for digital interactions could capture significant market share in an increasingly distrustful online environment.
The Corporate Responsibility Calculus
The discussion around “private sector responsibility” touches on a fundamental business ethics question: Where does corporate accountability begin and end in the digital value chain? When a bank processes a fraudulent wire transfer or a telecommunications carrier delivers a scam text, they’re essentially providing the infrastructure for criminal activity. The current legal framework treats these entities as neutral conduits, but as scam sophistication increases, this position becomes increasingly untenable. Companies face growing pressure to implement “know your customer” standards for business relationships that could be facilitating fraud, similar to anti-money laundering requirements in banking. The tipping point Pytlak mentions may well trigger regulatory changes that fundamentally reshape liability across the digital ecosystem.
Impending Market Transformation
We’re approaching a watershed moment where consumer tolerance for digital risk could catalyze market transformation. The $470 million in reported losses—likely representing a fraction of actual damages—creates enormous pressure for systemic solutions. This could manifest in several ways: insurance products specifically covering digital fraud, premium “verified” digital services with enhanced security, or regulatory mandates requiring financial institutions to absorb more fraud liability. The companies that position themselves as trust providers in this new landscape stand to gain substantial market advantage, while those clinging to the outdated notion of digital neutrality risk regulatory intervention and consumer backlash.
