Young and old Americans disagree sharply about who should pay when someone is scammed — but neither side's opinion decides what happens to your money. New research from fraud-prevention specialist Outseer, reported on October 27, 2026, finds that older Americans are far more likely to say the manipulated customer should bear the loss, while younger Americans are far more likely to say a bank should cover it. The law, however, turns on a different question entirely: was the payment authorised or unauthorised? This guide sets out what Outseer found, what the US rules actually say, and the recovery ladder to follow whatever your age — or your opinion.
The split in numbers
All survey figures in this section are Outseer's, as reported in its October 27, 2026 release and corroborated by The Paypers' coverage of the same research. Outseer surveyed 7,029 consumers across seven markets — the US, UK, Sweden, Australia, India, Brazil and Singapore — including 1,007 US respondents, asking about fraud and scam experience, attitudes to authentication and liability, and how they would respond if their bank failed to protect them.
The headline US finding concerns a customer manipulated into sending a bank transfer to a fraudster. According to Outseer, 42.9% of American respondents aged 65 and over believe that customer should bear the loss themselves, compared with 25.6% of those aged 18–24 — a gap of 17.3 percentage points. And the share blaming the customer rises with every age group from age 25 upward: 22.7%, then 23.5%, 27.8% and 32.5%, before reaching 42.9% among the over-65s. Younger Americans lean the other way: 55.4% of 18–24s say the sending bank, the receiving bank or both should cover the cost, compared with 35.9% of over-65s — a gap of 19.5 percentage points in the opposite direction.
The pattern, Outseer says, appears distinctly American. In the UK and India, also covered by the seven-market study, the share blaming the customer shows no clear age pattern, ranging from 18.9% to 33.3% in the UK and from 22.0% to 32.7% in India. Outseer's chief marketing officer, Chris Willis, put the implication plainly: as the US debate around scam reimbursement develops, understanding these differing expectations will matter both for policy discussions and for how banks explain their approach to protecting customers.
Two further Outseer figures give the split context. First, 57.9% of US consumers have personally experienced card-details fraud or seen it affect someone close to them — the highest of the seven markets surveyed — and fraud protection ranks among the top three reasons for choosing a bank for 56.4% of US respondents, ahead of low fees, rewards or interest rates. Second, the release notes that the US debate has far less regulatory clarity than the UK's, where the Payment Systems Regulator regime splits the cost of in-scope authorised push-payment scam claims 50:50 between sending and receiving banks. There is no equivalent general US rule for authorised scam payments — which is exactly why the authorised-versus-unauthorised line below matters so much.
The legal line is not age — it is authorised vs unauthorised
Here is the point the survey debate can obscure: no US consumer-protection rule sorts scam victims by age. The rules sort payments by whether you authorised them, by what you paid with, and by how fast you reported the problem. Your opinion about who should pay, and your bank's sympathy, are not the test — the payment's character is.
For electronic transfers from a bank account — debit cards, ATM transfers and peer-to-peer payments — Regulation E, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's implementation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, defines an unauthorised electronic fund transfer as one initiated by a person other than the consumer, without actual authority to initiate it, and from which the consumer receives no benefit. Consumer liability for a genuinely unauthorised transfer is capped: up to $50 if the consumer notifies the bank within two business days of learning of the loss or theft of an access device, and up to $500 if notice comes later, with further conditions for transfers after that window. The CFPB's commentary also makes clear that negligence alone cannot be used to impose greater liability than Regulation E allows. The hard case is the one Outseer asked about: a customer who was manipulated into authorising the payment themselves. That payment may look legitimate even though the outcome is fraud, as Willis notes — and banks frequently treat an authorised payment differently from an unauthorised one, with outcomes varying case by case. Report it anyway, immediately, and in writing: a fast, documented report is what preserves any recall, investigation or goodwill route that exists.
For credit cards, the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA), implemented through Regulation Z and enforced by the CFPB, gives cardholders the right to dispute billing errors — including charges they did not authorise — in writing within 60 days of the statement date on which the error first appeared, with the issuer required to acknowledge within 30 days and resolve within two billing cycles and no later than 90 days. Liability for unauthorised credit-card charges is limited to $50, and major networks and issuers commonly offer zero-liability protection for unauthorised charges reported promptly. Again, the protection is built around charges you did not authorise: a card payment you were tricked into making yourself is a harder dispute, pursued first with the issuer and the merchant, and it is not the same as a stolen-card charge. Rules and network policies vary by issuer, payment method and jurisdiction, so treat this guide as general information and check your own bank's terms and notices for the figures that bind you.
The practical upshot cuts across the age split. If you are over 65 and inclined to blame yourself, do not let that stop you reporting: self-blame is not the legal test, and a report costs nothing. If you are under 25 and expect the bank to cover it, do not assume it will: for an authorised transfer, there is no general US reimbursement rule like the UK's 50:50 split, and the bank's decision may go against you. Either way, the next section is the same.
Map your recovery route in minutes
Answer a few questions about how you paid and what happened, and get the right next steps for your case.
Work this ladder in order, and keep a written record at every step — dates, names, case references and copies of everything you send. Speed matters most at the top, because recalls and stops only work while the money can still be reached.
Step 1 — Report to your bank or card issuer immediately. Call the fraud number, say the payment was the result of a scam, and ask explicitly whether it can be stopped, recalled or reversed. For a bank transfer, ask about a recall request to the receiving bank. For a card payment, ask about a dispute or chargeback and which reason applies. Get a case reference and follow up in writing, keeping the written complaint even if the phone call felt resolved.
Step 2 — Pursue a card chargeback where the payment was by card. A chargeback applies to card payments, not to bank transfers, wire transfers, gift cards or cryptocurrency. If you paid by credit or debit card, file the dispute within the issuer's window — for FCBA billing errors, in writing within 60 days of the relevant statement date — and attach your evidence: the scammer's messages, the payment receipt, and a clear timeline of what you were told and when. If the merchant is real but the goods or service never arrived or were not as described, that is a separate dispute route from fraud, and it may be stronger.
Step 3 — Escalate inside the bank if the first answer is no. Ask for the denial in writing, with the reason given, and request a second review with any evidence you did not include the first time. Use the Denied Dispute: Next Steps guide and the Dispute Letter Generator to put the complaint in a form the bank must answer properly. A denied claim is not the end of the ladder.
Step 4 — Complain to the regulator. If the bank's final answer is unsatisfactory, complain to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau about the bank's handling of your case, and report the scam itself to the Federal Trade Commission. A regulator complaint does not guarantee repayment, but it creates a formal record, it is the route regulators use to spot patterns, and banks do answer CFPB complaints. Keep your CFPB complaint factual, attach your case reference and the bank's written denial, and state exactly what outcome you are asking for.
Step 5 — Report the crime and protect the accounts. Report the scam to local law enforcement and preserve all evidence — do not delete the scammer's messages, even if they are distressing. Change passwords and enable two-factor authentication on any account the scammer touched, and tell your bank about any credentials or codes you shared so it can watch for follow-on fraud. If gift cards, wire transfers or cryptocurrency were involved, use the matching checker on this site — Gift Card Scam Recovery Checker, Wire Transfer Scam Recovery Checker or Crypto Chargeback Reality Checker — because each of those payment methods has a different, usually narrower, recovery path.
Beware the second scam: fake recovery
The cruellest twist in scam recovery is the recovery scam: someone contacts a victim — often claiming to be a recovery firm, a lawyer, a regulator or even the original scammer under a new name — and promises to get the money back for an upfront fee, a tax payment or a further "release" charge. Treat any guaranteed-recovery promise as a red flag, and never pay an upfront fee to recover a loss. No legitimate bank, regulator or recovery route guarantees repayment, and genuine help — your bank's fraud team, the CFPB complaint process and this site's free tools — does not charge you to file. If a "recovery" offer arrives by message, email or call, stop, verify the sender independently through a number you find yourself (never one the message supplies), and report the approach as a new scam attempt.
Frequently asked
The short answers to the questions scam victims ask most about who pays.
No. Age is not a factor in the US rules described here. What matters is mainly whether the payment was authorised or unauthorised, what payment method was used, and how quickly you reported it — though banks' decisions on authorised scam payments still vary case by case.
Because a transaction you authorised yourself, even after being manipulated into it, may look legitimate to the bank, and the unauthorised-transaction protections in Regulation E and the Fair Credit Billing Act are built around payments you did not authorise. That is why banks often treat authorised scam payments differently — and why reporting fast and preserving evidence still matters.
Contact your bank or card issuer immediately, ask whether the payment can be stopped or recalled, and get a case reference in writing. Then preserve every message, receipt and account detail, and follow the recovery ladder in this guide: bank report, card chargeback where applicable, and a regulator complaint if the bank's answer is unsatisfactory.
Generally no — card chargebacks apply to card payments, not to bank transfers. A manipulated bank transfer is usually pursued through the bank's fraud process and, where available, a recall request to the receiving bank, not through a card chargeback. Use the Scam Recovery Navigator to map the right route for your payment method.
Be extremely cautious. Recovery scams target people who have already lost money, often with upfront fees and promises of guaranteed recovery. No legitimate recovery route guarantees your money back, and anyone demanding an upfront fee to recover a loss should be treated as a red flag.
Related reading
Tools and guides for scam recovery and dispute routes.
Sources (checked October 28, 2026): Outseer research release via EIN Presswire, "Older and Younger Americans Split Sharply on Who Should Cover Scam Losses, Outseer Research Finds", October 27, 2026: 7,029 consumers across seven markets (US, UK, Sweden, Australia, India, Brazil, Singapore), 1,007 US respondents; 42.9% of US respondents aged 65+ vs 25.6% of 18–24s say a manipulated customer should bear the loss; age ladder 22.7%, 23.5%, 27.8%, 32.5%, 42.9%; 55.4% of 18–24s vs 35.9% of over-65s say the sending bank, receiving bank or both should cover it; UK range 18.9%–33.3% and India range 22.0%–32.7% with no clear age pattern; 57.9% US card-details fraud exposure and 56.4% ranking fraud protection among top three bank-choice reasons; UK Payment Systems Regulator 50:50 split for in-scope authorised push-payment scam claims. Corroborated by The Paypers, "Outseer research finds US age gap on scam liability". Regulation E definition and liability tiers: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Regulation E commentary on section 1005.6 (liability of consumer for unauthorised transfers), including the rule that consumer negligence cannot impose greater liability than Regulation E allows. Fair Credit Billing Act basics (60-day written dispute window, 30-day acknowledgement, two-billing-cycle/90-day resolution, $50 unauthorised-use cap, open-end credit accounts only): Experian, "What Is the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA)?". Every survey statistic in this guide is attributed to Outseer; none is presented as this site's own finding. No survey figure supplied in the brief was cut: every figure was verified against the Outseer release and, for the headline figures, against The Paypers coverage.
General information only — not financial or legal advice. US scam-reimbursement rules vary by payment method, issuer and the facts of each case, and there is no general US reimbursement rule for authorised scam payments equivalent to the UK's regime. Check your own bank's notices and terms for the figures that bind you.
Chargeback Clock