The scam reporting system that routes fraud away from where it happens

According to Which?, only one in 10 fraud victims report a scam to the website or app where it actually happened. Facebook, Instagram and the rest of the platforms hosting fake ads, cloned websites and fraudulent profiles receive the fewest reports of any channel in the system, even though they are where the scam began.

That gap is not an accident of victim behaviour. Which? found that digital platforms have the worst reporting systems of any channel: around half of victims who tried to report to an app or website found it difficult, compared with one in five who struggled to report to their bank. The system is harder to use exactly where the fraud starts.

Where a scam actually begins

A fake ad or a cloned website is the first contact. Someone sees it, clicks it, trusts it enough to hand over money or details. That platform is the one place with direct evidence of the fraudulent listing or profile. But Which?'s survey shows victims route around it. Three quarters of victims reported the incident to their bank. Only one in six told the police or Police Scotland. Eight per cent used Action Fraud, and five per cent used Report Fraud, which replaced Action Fraud at the start of the year.

The bank, which had no part in creating the scam, ends up handling three times more reports than the platform that hosted it. This is the mechanism worth noticing: the institution best placed to act on a fake ad or cloned page is the one least likely to hear about it, because its own reporting process discourages the report.

What happens when someone does report

One person described reporting fraudulent activity to Facebook through its built-in report button and Help Centre. The process, they said, was handled very poorly. It felt entirely automated, and they received nothing but generic, template responses. No real support agent explained what action, if any, was being taken against the fraudster.

Across all channels, Which? found that around three in five people who reported to any platform or authority hit at least one problem. One in five felt stressed by a lack of response or resolution. One in six faced long phone queues. One in eight were passed between departments. One in 10 dealt with dismissive responses. Each of these frictions pushes the next victim toward silence, which is part of why reporting rates stay low and the platforms stay unaccountable for what they host.

What this means for anyone reporting a scam

Reporting to a bank matters and should still happen first, since banks can freeze transfers and investigate payments. But reporting the platform itself is the step that is being skipped most, and it is the step that could get a fake ad or cloned page taken down before it reaches someone else. A scam encountered on social media or a shopping site is worth reporting to that platform directly, even when the process feels automated, because it is currently the least-used route of all.