Lloyds Says 68% of Fraud Cases Start on Meta Platforms

The figures were highlighted by Liz Ziegler, Lloyds’ fraud prevention director, who said in an article for the Sunday Times that fraudsters are increasingly using Meta-owned services to make first contact with victims. The bank’s data suggests that people in their late twenties and early thirties are the most exposed to these scams, while under-25s are particularly vulnerable to ticket fraud.

The latest warning places Meta back at the centre of the debate over online fraud prevention, especially as banks argue that scammers are exploiting social media to build trust before moving conversations to encrypted or harder-to-trace channels. Lloyds has repeatedly argued that financial institutions cannot stop many scams alone because the criminal activity often begins long before a payment is made.

Among the most common fraud types identified by Lloyds is ticket fraud, particularly for concerts and sporting events. The bank said under-25s, including children under 18, are most at risk from fake ticket offers, with scams linked to events such as Taylor Swift concerts and Premier League matches.

Lloyds’ own fraud guidance warns that fraudsters often advertise low-priced tickets for concerts, sports fixtures and other events that do not exist. The bank also said that in previous cases, many reported concert ticket scams began with fake adverts on Facebook, including Facebook Marketplace.

This pattern reflects a broader shift in scam tactics. Rather than relying only on cold calls or obvious phishing messages, criminals increasingly use social media ads, direct messages and fake seller profiles to create urgency and authenticity. Lloyds’ findings suggest that the first stage of the scam often happens on a familiar social platform, making it harder for victims to recognise the danger.

Lloyds said customers in their late twenties and early thirties are being targeted heavily through social media scams, while younger users are especially exposed to fake ticket offers. That split suggests criminals are tailoring their tactics to different age groups, using different products, platforms and emotional triggers to attract attention.

For older young adults, social media scams may involve shopping fraud, bogus investment opportunities or impersonation schemes. For younger users, the lure of scarce event tickets or popular entertainment can be enough to trigger quick decisions without proper checks. Lloyds’ data indicates that scammers are exploiting both urgency and social proof, two of the strongest drivers of impulsive online behaviour.

The average claim value submitted to the bank has also risen above £500, according to reports based on Lloyds’ fraud data. That is about £100 higher than the previous year, suggesting scams are becoming not only more common but also more costly for victims.

The findings place renewed scrutiny on Meta’s role in scam prevention across Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. Lloyds has previously called on technology companies to share more of the burden in tackling online fraud, arguing that the current system leaves banks to absorb much of the financial impact after victims have already been tricked.

Earlier Lloyds research found that 68% of purchase scams began on Facebook and Instagram alone, accounting for around 40% of the total amount lost to that type of fraud. The bank said then that a user was falling victim to a scam on those platforms every seven minutes, with losses to consumers estimated at more than £27m a year.

That earlier analysis focused on purchase scams, while the latest figures cover fraud reports more broadly. Even so, both sets of data point in the same direction: a large share of consumer fraud is being initiated on Meta-owned services before moving into payment requests or off-platform communication.

Lloyds’ warning comes amid a wider banking-sector push for stronger controls on scam advertising and social-media fraud. Banks have long said that criminals exploit the speed, scale and targeting tools of digital platforms to reach potential victims more efficiently than through traditional channels.

In guidance published by Lloyds, the bank advises customers to be wary of unexpected messages, rushed payment requests, and links that ask for personal or banking details. It also warns that fraudsters often use urgency, emotional pressure and fake legitimacy to get people to act before they have time to verify a seller or message.

Lloyds says it uses a range of anti-fraud tools itself, including its DarkHorse anti-fraud technology, which monitors transactions in real time and issues alerts when activity looks suspicious. The bank’s latest comments suggest that while such systems can help intercept attempted fraud, the more difficult task is preventing scams from starting in the first place.

The Lloyds figures fit into a broader trend in which social media has become a key entry point for fraud. Scammers may begin with fake ads, impersonation accounts, bogus listings or direct messages, then move victims toward payment, messaging apps or imitation websites. That model gives criminals flexibility and makes enforcement harder because the fraudulent activity can span multiple platforms.

For victims, the consequences can include financial loss, emotional distress and a prolonged effort to recover money or dispute transactions. Lloyds’ latest figures show that the problem is not limited to any single scam category, but ticket fraud appears to be a particularly acute example because it blends popularity, scarcity and emotional urgency.

The bank’s latest data is likely to intensify calls for social platforms, banks and regulators to coordinate more closely on fraud prevention. For now, Lloyds’ message is clear: a significant share of its customer fraud cases begins not at the bank, but on Meta’s social networks.

This database is curated and maintained by the Anti Money Laundering Network (AML Network). Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information provided. If you find any errors, discrepancies, or have questions, please contact us at info@amlnetwork.org.

The AML Ratings included in this database are assigned according to our proprietary AML Network Rating Guidelines.