Connect with us

Personal Finance

Businesses are losing $100 billion a year from ‘friendly fraud,’ report finds

Published

on

Man sits on a sofa in his living room and uses a credit card to pay online.

Stefanikolic | E+ | Getty Images

When a product you ordered online arrives and it’s not up to par, you might contact the merchant to address the problem.

However, what happens if you skip that step and just dispute the credit card transaction? 

More consumers are doing just that — some in bad faith to get their money back from the card issuer, even if there’s no problem with the purchase. It’s just one example of so-called “friendly” or “first-party” fraud that’s catching the attention of security and credit card companies. 

Friendly fraud, when a customer disputes a legitimate charge they made on their credit card, debit card, or another payment method, is responsible for $100 billion of loss for businesses each year, according to identity verification platform Socure.

Additionally, 35% of Americans have committed first-party fraud, and 40% know someone who has, according to the Socure October survey of 1,000 adults.

More from Personal Finance:
Job seekers are sour on the cooling labor market
$1 million hypothetical portfolios: How rich kids learn about money
How to ‘emotionproof’ your portfolio ahead of the election

Here’s part of the problem: Disputing charges has become easier for consumers in recent years, experts say, largely thanks to efforts to enhance mobile banking service in response to canceled travel and other pandemic repercussions.

“There are legitimate disputes, and the chargeback process was built to recognize and provide some sort of relief for those legitimate disputes,” said Rodrigo Figueroa, chief operating officer of Chargeback Gurus, a company that helps businesses recover revenue.

“Now we see this massive level of abuse,” he said.

Friendly fraud is a broad term

Credit card experts say identifying friendly fraud can be difficult. 

“There are a lot of stats around the rise of it, but it seems like it’s almost becoming this catch-all for anything we just don’t understand,” said Robert Painter, vice president of partnerships at fraud protection platform Kount, an Equifax company. “The word fraud is sometimes even used a little loosely.”

Sometimes, there isn’t an intent to defraud, experts admit.

For example, a consumer who doesn’t recognize the merchant name used to identify a purchase on their credit card bill might dispute the charge as fraudulent. Under the Fair Credit Billing Act, this is a legitimate dispute, said Chi Chi Wu, a senior attorney at the National Consumer Law Center.

“The merchant places a charge on a credit card account and doesn’t use the commonly known name and the consumer disputes that. That’s a legitimate dispute under the law,” said Wu. “They have a right to clarification.”

Still, this scenario can be labeled as friendly fraud.

According to the Socure report, 29% of those who said they engaged in first-party fraud said it was an accident. Others said they were experiencing economic hardship (34%) or they knew someone else who had gotten away with this maneuver and gave it a try (19%). 

Merchants take the biggest toll

Determining the intent of the consumer can be the toughest issue to solve for fraud experts, said Socure CEO and founder Johnny Ayers.

The company launched a consortium of banks and fintech companies in 2023 to address this, identifying data that doesn’t show up in typical credit reports in an attempt to recognize bad actors. 

“We look at the number of accounts, number of disputes, number of overturned disputes, number of closed accounts. You start to stack all of these and you start to see intent,” Ayers said. “You start to see the behavior of this individual has a very large standard deviation from a normal person.”

Whether legitimate or not, experts say merchants can feel the pain from a high volume of chargebacks, when a credit card provider demands a merchant to make good on a transaction disputed by the consumer as fraudulent.

Excessive chargebacks could also affect a merchant’s ability to process cards or a credit card company could levy fines or fees against the merchant, according to Domenic Cirone, vice president of acquirer solutions at Equifax, which acquired Kount in 2021. 

The Merchant Risk Council, which consists of 600 e-commerce companies, reported in April that 94% of its members have experienced first-party fraud in the past year.

Looking at Socure’s research, $89 billion of the $100 billion attributed to this type of fraud is lost by merchants. The remainder comes from credit card fraud loss ($18 billion) and the dispute resolution from the top 15 U.S. banks. ($3 billion).

‘Most folks are honest’

Before consumers make a legitimate dispute, credit card experts and advocates recommend attempting to resolve the issue with the merchant first.

Part of why filing a dispute is so easy is because a credit card issuer will often choose to accept a dispute to preserve its reputation, according to Wu.

“One thing credit card issuers really [have to] think about before they start fighting with merchants all the time is, ‘Is this going to affect the ability to retain good customers,'” she said. “I definitely hear from consumers [saying] ‘X issuer is good on disputes. They stand up for me.” 

Meanwhile, fraud professionals point to social media for the jump in friendly fraud.

A TikTok search of “disputing credit card charge” results in hundreds of videos of finance influencers sharing tips for disputing charges, and even people admitting to disputing legitimate charges to get their money back.

“They just teach you how to go steal money,” Ayers said. “All they’re doing is giving how-to guides of how to work around the rules, basically to systematically steal money from these organizations in a way that made it look like it was some type of duress or distress.”

But a lot of disputes can be attributed to simple misunderstandings between the consumer, merchant and card issuer, Cirone said.

“Every time a transaction is disputed as fraud, it’s a line item that goes through the Visa, MasterCard, Amex, Discover system. That overall statistic that I’m talking about is not driven by social media,” Cirone said. “Most folks are honest. Consumers, cardholders are honest folks and I think there’s a break in communication.”

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

Trump pauses Social Security benefit cuts over defaulted student loans

Published

on

The U.S. Department of Education is seen on March 20, 2025 in Washington, DC. U.S. President Donald Trump is preparing to sign an executive order to abolish the Department of Education. 

Win Mcnamee | Getty Images News | Getty Images

The U.S. Department of Education is pausing its plan to garnish people’s Social Security benefits if they have defaulted on their student loans, a spokesperson for the agency tells CNBC.

“The Trump Administration is committed to protecting Social Security recipients who oftentimes rely on a fixed income,” said Ellen Keast, an Education Department spokesperson.

The development is an abrupt change in policy by the administration.

The Trump administration announced on April 21 that it would resume collection activity on the country’s $1.6 trillion student loan portfolio. For nearly half a decade, the government did not go after those who’d fallen behind as part of Covid-era policies.

The federal government has extraordinary collection powers on its student loans and it can seize borrowers’ tax refundspaychecks and Social Security retirement and disability benefits. Social Security recipients can see their checks reduced by up to 15% to pay back their defaulted student loan.

More than 450,000 federal student loan borrowers age 62 and older are in default on their federal student loans and likely to be receiving Social Security benefits, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

What the national debt, deficit mean for your money

Published

on

Annabelle Gordon/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The massive package of tax cuts House Republicans passed in May is expected to increase the U.S. debt by trillions of dollars — a sum that threatens to torpedo the legislation as the Senate starts to consider it this week.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates the bill, as written, would add about $3.1 trillion to the national debt over a decade with interest, to a total $53 trillion. The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimates a higher tally: $3.8 trillion, including interest and economic effects.

Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky was one of two Republicans to vote against the House measure, calling it a “debt bomb ticking” and noting that it “dramatically increases deficits in the near term.”

“Congress can do funny math — fantasy math — if it wants,” Massie said on the House floor on May 22. “But bond investors don’t.”

A handful of Republican Senators have also voiced concern about the bill’s potential addition to the U.S. debt load and other aspects of the legislation.

“The math doesn’t really add up,” Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, said Sunday on CBS.

The legislation comes as interest payments on U.S. debt have surpassed national spending on defense and represent the second-largest outlay behind Social Security. Federal debt as a percentage of gross domestic product, a measure of U.S. economic output, is already at an all-time high.

The notion of rising national debt may seem unimportant for the average person, but it can have a significant impact on household finances, economists said.

“I don’t think most consumers think about it at all,” said Tim Quinlan, senior economist at Wells Fargo Economics. “They think, ‘It doesn’t really impact me.’ But I think the truth is, it absolutely does.”

Consumer loans would be ‘a lot more’ expensive

A much higher U.S. debt burden would likely cause consumers to “pay a lot more” to finance homes, cars and other common purchases, said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s.

“That’s the key link back to us as consumers, businesspeople and investors: The prospect that all this borrowing, the rising debt load, mean higher interest rates,” he said.

Sen. MarkWayne Mullin: Overall structure of House GOP reconciliation bill will stay intact

The House legislation cuts taxes for households by about $4 trillion, most of which accrue for the wealthy. The bill offsets some of those tax cuts by slashing spending for safety-net programs like Medicaid and food assistance for lower earners.

Some Republicans and White House officials argue President Trump’s tariff policies would offset a big chunk of the tax cuts.

But economists say tariffs are an unreliable revenue generator — because a future president can undo them, and courts may take them off the books.

How rising debt impacts Treasury yields

U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) speaks to the media after the House narrowly passed a bill forwarding President Donald Trump’s agenda at the U.S. Capitol on May 22, 2025.

Kevin Dietsch | Getty Images News | Getty Images

Ultimately, higher interest rates for consumers ties to perceptions of U.S. debt loads and their effect on U.S. Treasury bonds.

Common forms of consumer borrowing like mortgages and auto loans are priced based on yields for U.S. Treasury bonds, particularly the 10-year Treasury.

Yields (i.e., interest rates) for long-term Treasury bonds are largely dictated by market forces. They rise and fall based on supply and demand from investors.

The U.S. relies on Treasury bonds to fund its operations. The government must borrow, since it doesn’t take in enough annual tax revenue to pay its bills, what’s known as an annual “budget deficit.” It pays back Treasury investors with interest.

More from Personal Finance:
How GOP tax bill could change in the Senate
3 key moves to consider while Fed keeps rates higher
Trump administration axes barrier for crypto in 401(k) plans

If the Republican bill — called the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” — were to raise the U.S. debt and deficit by trillions of dollars, it would likely spook investors and Treasury demand may fall, economists said.

Investors would likely demand a higher interest rate to compensate for the additional risk that the U.S. government may not pay its debt obligations in a timely way down the road, economists said.

Interest rates priced to the 10-year Treasury “also have to go up because of the higher risk being taken,” said Philip Chao, chief investment officer and certified financial planner at Experiential Wealth based in Cabin John, Maryland.

Moody’s cut the U.S.’ sovereign credit rating in May, citing the increasing burden of the federal budget deficit and signaling a bigger credit risk for investors. Bond yields spiked on the news.

How debt may impact consumer borrowing

The bond market is 'sounding the alarm' on U.S. and global fiscal situations, says Subadra Rajappa

A fixed 30-year mortgage would rise from almost 7% to roughly 7.6%, all else equal — likely putting homeownership further “out of reach,” especially for many potential first-time buyers, he said.

The debt-to-GDP ratio would swell from about 101% at the end of 2025 to an estimated 148% through 2034 under the as-written House legislation, said Kent Smetters, an economist and faculty director for the Penn Wharton Budget Model.

Bond investors get hit, too

‘Pouring gasoline on the fire’

“But it’s not going out on too much of a limb to suggest financial markets the last couple years have grown increasingly concerned about debt levels,” Quinlan said.

Absent action, the U.S. debt burden would still rise, economists said. The debt-to-GDP ratio would swell to 138% even if Republicans don’t pass any legislation, Smetters said.

But the House legislation would be “pouring gasoline on the fire,” said Chao.

“It’s adding to the problems we already have,” Chao said. “And this is why the bond market is not happy with it,” he added.

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

Where seniors face the longest drives

Published

on

A Social Security Administration office in Washington, D.C., March 26, 2025.

Saul Loeb | Afp | Getty Images

A new Social Security Administration policy will require nearly 2 million additional beneficiaries to visit the agency’s offices each year to change their direct deposit information, according to agency estimates.

That’s often not a quick trip: Nearly one-quarter of seniors live more than an hour away from their local Social Security field office, according to a new analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Meanwhile, half of seniors need to drive for at least 33 minutes without traffic to get to their Social Security office.

The policy change will lead to more than 1 million hours of travel per year, according to the nonpartisan policy and research institute.

Why more people need to visit Social Security offices

The Social Security Administration said the new direct deposit requirements would curb fraud, which it said it’s been working to root out in coordination with the Trump administration’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency.

Since 2023, the agency has experienced a “marked increase” in allegations of direct deposit fraud, a Social Security Administration official said via email.

In March, SSA implemented enhanced fraud protection for direct deposit changes. Between March 29 and April 26, the enhanced fraud protection flagged more than 20,000 Social Security numbers where phone direct deposit requests failed security measures that check for multiple fraud indicators.

Of the direct deposit transactions flagged, 61% to 72% of individuals never resubmitted their requests, a “strong indicator” that many of those attempts may not have been legitimate, according to the SSA official.

The agency estimates $19.9 million in losses were avoided as a result of the enhanced safety measures.

However, advocates say the change is an overreaction, given the scale of such fraud. The Social Security Administration has said about 40% of direct deposit fraud comes from phone calls attempting to change direct deposit information.

In early 2024, anti-fraud officials at the agency told The New York Times that about 2,000 beneficiaries had their direct deposits redirected over the prior year. By those estimates, that would mean just 800 of those people experienced direct deposit fraud by phone, according to Kathleen Romig, director of Social Security and disability policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Yet the agency is now requiring about 2 million elderly and disabled individuals to visit its offices to prevent such fraud, she said.

More from Personal Finance:
What the House GOP budget bill means for your money
Trump tariffs create the ‘perfect storm’ for scams
Social Security COLA for 2026 projected to be lowest in years

To help ensure benefit payments are not misdirected, the Social Security Administration has tightened beneficiaries’ ability to change their bank information over the phone.

As of April 28, individuals who want to change their direct deposit information will need to log into or create a personal My Social Security online account and obtain a one-time code before they call the agency’s 800 number.

Individuals who cannot use online or automatic enrollment services will need to visit a local field office to verify their identity in person. While the agency encourages those individuals to make an appointment, it is also possible to walk in for direct deposit changes.

Individuals who want to change their direct deposit information may also use automatic enrollment services through their bank. To do so, individuals need to contact their bank directly. Not all financial institutions participate in this process, according to SSA.

What you need to know about Social Security

Because many seniors or disabled individuals do not have internet service, computers or smart phones — or if they do, may not know how to use those resources — many will likely have to make an in-person visit to their local Social Security office.

About 6 million seniors don’t drive, while almost 8 million older Americans have a medical condition or disability that makes it difficult for them to travel, according to CBPP research.

Where seniors may face longest drive times

In-person appointments may be burdensome for beneficiaries who face long travel times to get to their nearest Social Security office, according to the CBPP analysis.

In 31 states, more than 25% of seniors face travel times of more than an hour to get to their local field office.

In certain less-populated states, more than 40% of seniors would need to drive more than an hour. Those include Arkansas, Iowa, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming.

In other states, around 25% to 39% of seniors would need to travel over an hour. That includes Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Virginia.

Residents of other states may also face a burden if they do not live near their closest Social Security field office.

Student loan default collection restarting

The analysis is a conservative estimate to help assess how much time it may cost individuals who are affected by the policy, according to Devin O’Connor, senior fellow at the CBPP.

For example, it doesn’t take into account the time spent getting an appointment to visit a Social Security office and the time spent waiting for the appointment, he said.

The CBPP’s analysis was created with information from multiple sources including the 2022 National Household Travel Survey, SSA field office location data, the OpenTimes travel time database and the Census Bureau’s 2023 American Community Survey.

The Social Security Administration has not independently validated the data, the agency said via email in response to a request for comment.

Staffing cuts may add to appointment wait times

Notably, the new direct deposit requirements come as the Social Security Administration has moved to cut its work force by about 7,000 employees, reductions that have led some of the agency’s field offices to be “understaffed,” O’Connor said.

However, while it had been reported that DOGE planned to close Social Security field offices to help curb spending, thus far that has largely not happened, he said. The Social Security Administration has denied it plans to close local field offices.

Individuals who need to visit a Social Security field office will also be confronted by long wait times for appointments. Currently, just 43% of individuals are able to get a benefit appointment within 28 days, Social Security Administration data shows.

The agency’s new policy to limit phone transactions has been scaled back. The agency had proposed limiting the ability to apply for benefits over the phone, but after it received pushback from organizations including the AARP, the agency changed that policy to limit only direct deposit transactions.

Continue Reading

Trending