Building a Multi-Generational Fraud Strategy

Gen Z, it turns out, is the fraudster’s new mark. 

While the industry grapples with the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in fraud, a fundamental question is whether we understand who fraudsters are actually targeting. Data from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) indicates we may not.  

The FTC’s Consumer Sentinel Network shows that 20-to-29-year-olds are more likely than older age groups to report losing money to fraud, but the industry’s focus has been on protecting older fraud victims. In 2022, Congress passed the Stop Senior Scams Act, legislation that established a public-private working group to strengthen legal protections for elderly fraud victims. But the act barely mentions younger ones.  

Fraudsters are exploiting technology-related behavioral gaps between the generations. Digital natives, who have never unraveled a phone cord, are so accustomed to clicking links and downloading apps that they miss the red flags of fraud through channels like landlines. Digital immigrants, who grew up before digital technologies were widespread, know how to read a paper map but are less familiar with digital communications and less likely to recognize when to ignore a sincere-sounding direct message.  

Once caught in an online scam, a single click can turn a transaction into fraud. Fraudsters can post fake ads for in-demand concert tickets, cars, or electronics on Facebook Marketplace. In an instant, unsuspecting shoppers might send an “upfront payment” via Zelle or Venmo and watch the “seller,” along with their money, disappear.  

In 2025, Facebook hosted more online fraudsters than any other platform (WhatsApp and Instagram were distant second- and third-place finishers, respectively). People lost much more money to Facebook scams than to text or email scams. 

One reason that fraud is rising among young people could be their exposure to it. Folks born after 1996 (Gen Z) spend 7.2 hours per day on their phone watching videos, compared with two to three hours of screen time for other adults, according to a report by SlickText (as of May 2026).  

You’d think that all that digital fluency would make them scam-proof, which leads to the assumption that older people are the main fraud targets. Instead, younger generations’ familiarity with online transactions breeds complacency. In a recent NordVPN survey, 28% of 28-to-43-year-olds said they’d clicked on a malicious link more than once—the highest percentage of any age group.  

Baby Boomers, meanwhile, fall for online scams of a different color—and lose significantly more money when they do. While younger people report fraud more often, FTC data shows that victims aged 70+ suffer far greater losses per incident, likely because many of them have larger savings and retirement accounts to draw from.  

Fraudsters can pull the purse strings by tugging on older folks’ heartstrings. Those born between 1946 and 1964 are more vulnerable to scams that manipulate personal connections, NordVPN’s study found. In 2023, a 77-year-old New York woman was swindled out of more than $177,000 in a romance scam in which the fraudster contacted her via Facebook. In December 2024, checks totaling $158,000 that she attempted to send were stopped by her bank, preventing her from losing even more. 

Effective detection rules, like those that stopped this scam, are based on customer behavior and transaction context, not just demographics. A long-time customer who suddenly starts sending large wire transfers or checks to foreign countries could be involved in a romance scam. A new customer who deposits a check and then immediately makes outbound ACH, Zelle, or wire transfers to an unknown business could be ensnared in employment fraud. 

Rules that use account age to compare customer behavior to normal activity are part of standard risk management.  

More than just stopping transactions, banks that use a layered approach—behavioral flags, in-app step-up verification for unusual transfers, and real-time alerts—leverage multiple intervention points before, during, and after a transaction to stop fraud before funds are gone.  

Messaging also matters. Research on scam-prevention messaging from the Scams Against Older Adults Advisory Group, created by the Stop Seniors Scam Act, suggests that one-size-fits-all fraud-prevention campaigns don’t work. Older adults are more likely to retain positive, connection-oriented anti-fraud messages. Rather than saying, “Don’t fall for fake tech support calls,” deploy a positively framed message like, “You don’t have to handle tech problems alone. Calling your bank directly using the number on your card means you always have someone trustworthy in your corner.” Younger adults, on the other hand, are more urgency-tolerant, especially when the urgency is gamified. “See how fast you can spot the scam” campaigns, for example, create engagement and awareness.  

Traditional communication channels, such as in-branch and by mail, still work. Digital immigrants are likely to listen to a banker who tells them the signs of a romance scam. And a fraud information mailer that would be ignored by Gen Z is not obsolete for older Americans, who open physical mail at higher rates than younger ones.  

In-the-moment warnings can be effective for all ages, especially if they are action-oriented. Studies suggest that for people to take a newly prescribed action, the message must be both memorable and actionable at the time of the required behavior. A pop-up message on a phone during a deposit could prompt necessary reflection: “Is this a job reimbursement check? Learn why these are often fake.”  

Threats of urgency and scarcity (“Act now or you will lose”) send all of us into fight-or-flight mode, whether we are online or offline, young or old. “The real moment of attack is when someone feels rushed, scared, or pressured into trusting too quickly,” says NordVPN Chief Technology Officer Marijus Briedis. That’s why a comprehensive fraud strategy is so important. Targeted counter-messaging—this urgency could be a scam—bolsters our judgment before it fails. 

Our biggest vulnerability isn’t a cleverer algorithm or a more convincing deepfake. It’s the belief that scams don’t happen to us. This “optimism bias” distorts perceptions of personal risk, according to the aforementioned research on scam messaging. The industry has its own version of this blind spot—assuming fraud is mostly an older adult’s problem. Bias brings down our guard and lets scammers into our minds and our accounts. Fraudsters don’t discriminate based on age. The industry shouldn’t either.