No matter where you live in the U.S., AI-driven scams and deceptive content are increasingly filling our feeds, alerts, and inboxes with moments that make us stop and ask: “Is this real?”

But the scams and threats Americans encounter aren’t the same everywhere. Where you live can shape the types of scams reaching your devices, how often you encounter them, and even how those experiences affect the way you behave online.

This 50-state breakdown combines McAfee consumer research with McAfee Labs data to show how Americans are experiencing scams, how those experiences are affecting trust and behavior online, and which text-based scams are reaching devices across the country.

The consumer findings come from a nationally representative survey of 5,000 U.S. adults, with 100 respondents in each state. The survey explores people’s exposure to scams, financial losses, changing online behaviors, concerns about AI and the mental effort involved in deciding what to trust online.

Alongside those findings, McAfee Labs analyzed text-based scam activity across the U.S. from May through July 2026. That data provides a view into the volume, concentration and types of scam texts McAfee observed in each state during the three-month analysis period.

Together, the two datasets offer different views of the same problem: what people say they are experiencing and how it affects them, alongside the scam activity McAfee is seeing in the wild.

Alabama

Key takeaway: Alabama had the highest scam-text rate per device in McAfee’s analysis, while scam concerns are also changing how residents behave online.

• 66% say figuring out what’s real online takes more mental energy than it did a year ago.
• 60% check whether something online is legitimate at least weekly.
• 19% say they do that checking several times a day.
• 45% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 83% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 64% have avoided an unfamiliar retailer because of scam concerns.
• 42% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email because they feared a scam.
• 41% have avoided trying a new app, website or service.
• 39% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.
• Investment and cryptocurrency scams were the leading text-scam category detected in Alabama.

McAfee detected 5.14 scam texts per device, the highest rate in the country.

Alaska

Key takeaway: Alaska has one of the widest gaps between rising trust fatigue and active checking: 54% report more mental effort, but only 44% verify online content at least weekly.

• 54% say figuring out what’s real online takes more mental energy than a year ago.
• 44% check online legitimacy at least weekly.
• 13% say they check several times a day.
• 44% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 82% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 48% have avoided an unfamiliar retailer.
• 39% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 40% have avoided trying a new app, website or service.
• 34% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams were the leading text-scam category detected in Alaska.

Arizona

Key takeaway: Arizonans are feeling a pronounced trust burden, with 65% saying it now takes more mental energy to decide what’s real online.

• 65% report greater mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 60% check online legitimacy at least weekly.
• 17% check several times a day.
• 41% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 81% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 43% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 44% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 31% have avoided trying a new app, website or service.
• 39% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Arizona’s text-scam volume.

Arkansas

Key takeaway: Arkansas residents are relatively active verifiers: 64% check online legitimacy at least weekly even though only about half report greater mental strain.

• 51% say figuring out what’s real online takes more mental energy.
• 64% verify online content at least weekly.
• 22% check several times a day.
• 38% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 77% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 46% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 42% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 32% have avoided trying a new app, website or service.
• 32% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Arkansas text-scam volume.

California

Key takeaway: California has one of the heaviest trust burdens in the survey: 72% say figuring out what’s real online now takes more mental energy.

• 72% report greater mental effort deciding what’s real online.
• 58% verify online content at least weekly.
• 20% check several times a day.
• 41% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 83% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 49% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 43% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 32% have avoided trying a new app, website or service.
• 38% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.
• Among Californians surveyed who lost money to scams, 72% recovered none of it.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led California’s  text-scam volume. 

Colorado

Key takeaway: Colorado’s clearest signal is concern about AI-enabled scams, shared by 85% of residents surveyed.

• 59% report greater mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 56% verify online content at least weekly.
• 15% check several times a day.
• 38% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 85% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 42% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 45% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 35% have avoided trying a new app, website or service.
• 34% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Colorado’s text-scam volume.

Connecticut

Key takeaway: Connecticut residents report rising trust fatigue, yet fewer than half say they verify online content every week.

• 57% say figuring out what’s real takes more mental energy.
• 47% verify online content at least weekly.
• 18% check several times a day.
• 35% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 79% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 33% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 36% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 26% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 24% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Connecticut’s text-scam volume.

Delaware

Key takeaway: Delaware stands out for exposure to synthetic imagery, with 46% encountering an AI-generated image presented as real.

• 53% report greater mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 53% verify online content at least weekly.
• 8% check several times a day.
• 46% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 80% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 47% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 34% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 30% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 33% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Delaware’s text-scam volume.

Florida

Key takeaway: Floridians are active online reality-checkers, with 63% verifying messages, offers, websites or people at least weekly.

• 56% report greater mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 63% verify online content at least weekly.
• 18% check several times a day.
• 43% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 85% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 43% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 37% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 42% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 27% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Florida text-scam volume.

Georgia

Key takeaway: Georgia had the second-highest scam-text-per-device rate highlighted by McAfee, at 4.67.

• 59% report greater mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 60% verify online content at least weekly.
• 25% check several times a day.
• 33% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 80% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 40% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 37% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 27% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 35% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.
• McAfee detected an average of 4.67 scam texts per device.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Georgia’s text-scam volume. 

Hawaii

Key takeaway: Hawaii had the country’s highest scam intensity among affected devices: those receiving at least one scam text averaged 8.45 over three months.

• 56% report greater mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 54% verify online content at least weekly.
• 13% check several times a day.
• 38% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 81% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 47% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 38% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 37% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 37% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.
• Affected devices averaged 8.45 scam texts, the highest figure nationally.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Hawaii’s text-scam volume. 

Idaho

Key takeaway: Idaho shows a sizeable trust gap: 62% report greater mental effort deciding what’s real, while 49% verify online content weekly.

• 62% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 49% verify online content at least weekly.
• 13% check several times a day.
• 43% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 82% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 48% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 35% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 40% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 38% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Idaho’s text-scam volume.

Illinois

Key takeaway: Two-thirds of Illinois residents say deciding what’s real online is taking more mental energy than a year ago.

• 66% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 59% verify online content at least weekly.
• 18% check several times a day.
• 39% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 75% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 40% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 26% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 32% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 24% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Illinois text-scam volume.

Indiana

Key takeaway: Indiana’s scam anxiety is translating into caution: 81% are concerned about AI making scams harder to recognize and 60% verify online content weekly.

• 62% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 60% verify online content at least weekly.
• 18% check several times a day.
• 46% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 81% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 38% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 41% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 35% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 35% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Indiana text-scam volume.

Iowa

Key takeaway: Iowa residents report relatively restrained checking behavior: 47% verify online content at least weekly despite 55% reporting greater mental effort.

• 55% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 47% verify online content at least weekly.
• 17% check several times a day.
• 33% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 81% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 43% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 32% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 33% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 34% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Iowa text-scam volume.

Kansas

Key takeaway: Kansas has one of the bleakest recovery pictures in the survey: 75% of scam victims who lost money recovered none of it.

• 61% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 51% verify online content at least weekly.
• 10% check several times a day.
• 40% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 80% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 42% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 39% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 40% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 32% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.
• 75% of victims who lost money said they recovered none of it.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Kansas text-scam volume.

Kentucky

Key takeaway: Kentucky is the standout verification state: 76% say they check whether online content is legitimate at least weekly.

• 62% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 76% verify online content at least weekly.
• 19% check several times a day.
• 41% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 83% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 46% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 30% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 39% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 25% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Kentucky text-scam volume.

Louisiana

Key takeaway: Louisiana combines comparatively low trust fatigue with severe financial consequences: 73% of victims who lost money recovered none of it.

• 45% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 54% verify online content at least weekly.
• 13% check several times a day.
• 35% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 75% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 43% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 37% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 32% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 30% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.
• 73% of victims who lost money said they recovered none of it.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Louisiana text-scam volume.

Maine

Key takeaway: Maine is one of only two states where toll and traffic scams, rather than investment and crypto scams, ranked first in McAfee’s text telemetry.

• 64% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 59% verify online content at least weekly.
• 13% check several times a day.
• 39% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 81% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 46% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 34% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 34% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 30% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Toll and traffic violation scams were Maine’s leading text-scam category.

Maryland

Key takeaway: Marylanders show particularly high concern about AI-enabled fraud, with 86% saying AI is making scams harder to recognize.

• 65% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 60% verify online content at least weekly.
• 25% check several times a day.
• 45% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 86% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 46% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 45% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 37% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 44% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Maryland text-scam volume.

Massachusetts

Key takeaway: Massachusetts has a striking trust gap: 65% report more mental effort deciding what’s real, but only 48% verify online content at least weekly.

• 65% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 48% verify online content at least weekly.
• 15% check several times a day.
• 46% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 86% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 47% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 35% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 37% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 38% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Massachusetts text-scam volume.

Michigan

Key takeaway: Michigan joins Maine as the only state where toll and traffic scams outranked investment and cryptocurrency scams.

• 71% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 52% verify online content at least weekly.
• 21% check several times a day.
• 43% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 71% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 40% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 35% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 34% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 32% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Toll and traffic violation scams were Michigan’s leading text-scam category.

Minnesota

Key takeaway: Minnesota records the highest AI-scam concern in the state crosstabs, at 91%.

• 60% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 59% verify online content at least weekly.
• 10% check several times a day.
• 47% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 91% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 44% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 44% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 38% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 34% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Minnesota text-scam volume.

Mississippi

Key takeaway: Mississippi had one of the heaviest scam-text loads in McAfee’s analysis, averaging roughly 4.64 scam texts per device.

• 55% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 54% verify online content at least weekly.
• 17% check several times a day.
• 32% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 82% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 43% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 34% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 34% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 35% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.
• McAfee detected roughly 4.64 scam texts per device.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Mississippi text-scam volume.

Missouri

Key takeaway: Missouri residents show a confidence problem around AI scams: 13% said they were not at all confident spotting AI-created or AI-enhanced fraud.

• 63% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 60% verify online content at least weekly.
• 16% check several times a day.
• 41% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 85% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 43% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 40% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 39% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 35% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.
• 13% said they’re not at all confident they could spot a scam enhanced by AI

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Missouri text-scam volume.

Montana

Key takeaway: Montana has the highest reported exposure to AI-generated images presented as real, at 51%.

• 63% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 49% verify online content at least weekly.
• 11% check several times a day.
• 51% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 84% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 47% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 44% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 43% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 37% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Montana text-scam volume.

Nebraska

Key takeaway: Nebraska’s strongest signal is AI concern: 87% say AI is making online scams harder to recognize.

• 56% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 50% verify online content at least weekly.
• 8% check several times a day.
• 43% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 87% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 41% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 35% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 40% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 29% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Nebraska text-scam volume.

Nevada

Key takeaway: Nevada has the broadest reported scam exposure in the survey, with 95% encountering at least one type of scam in the past year.

• 60% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 66% verify online content at least weekly.
• 18% check several times a day.
• 43% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 82% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 45% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 33% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 32% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 33% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.
• 95% encountered at least one type of scam in the past year.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Nevada text-scam volume.

New Hampshire

Key takeaway: New Hampshire shows another trust gap: 59% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real, while 46% verify online content weekly.

• 59% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 46% verify online content at least weekly.
• 10% check several times a day.
• 48% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 85% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 50% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 34% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 37% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 33% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led New Hampshire text-scam volume.

New Jersey

Key takeaway: New Jersey residents report unusually frequent scam exposure, with 30% saying they encounter four or more scam attempts on a typical day.

• 61% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 61% verify online content at least weekly.
• 18% check several times a day.
• 43% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 82% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 49% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 34% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 37% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 36% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.
• 30% report encountering at least four scam attempts on a typical day.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led New Jersey text-scam volume.

New Mexico

Key takeaway: New Mexico has one of the toughest scam-recovery pictures: 72% of victims who lost money recovered none of it.

• 65% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 59% verify online content at least weekly.
• 16% check several times a day.
• 39% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 79% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 42% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 48% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 38% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 44% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.
• 72% of victims who lost money said they recovered none of it.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led New Mexico text-scam volume.

New York

Key takeaway: New York’s most striking behavioral signal is comparatively low retailer avoidance: 33% have stayed away from unfamiliar sellers because of scam concerns.

• 59% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 58% verify online content at least weekly.
• 19% check several times a day.
• 41% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 78% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 33% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 37% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 27% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 27% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led New York text-scam volume.

North Carolina

Key takeaway: North Carolina stands out on recovery: 42% of scam victims who lost money said they recovered all of it.

• 53% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 65% verify online content at least weekly.
• 17% check several times a day.
• 33% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 69% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 38% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 38% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 29% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 29% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.
• 42% of victims who lost money reported recovering all of it.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led North Carolina text-scam volume.

North Dakota

Key takeaway: North Dakota had the country’s highest concentration of scams in analyzed text traffic, at 2.8%.

• 61% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 55% verify online content at least weekly.
• 13% check several times a day.
• 46% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 83% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 48% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 40% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 40% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 37% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.
• 2.8% of analyzed text traffic was classified as scams, the highest share nationally.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led North Dakota text-scam volume.

Ohio

Key takeaway: Ohio stands out for financial harm: 41% of respondents say they lost money to an online scam in the past year.

• 59% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 63% verify online content at least weekly.
• 20% check several times a day.
• 46% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 73% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 44% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 33% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 33% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 30% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.
• 41% report losing money to an online scam in the past year.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Ohio text-scam volume.

Oklahoma

Key takeaway: Oklahoma consumers are feeling the mental load of navigating AI-powered scams: 85% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize, while half say figuring out what’s real online requires more mental effort.

• 56% verify online content at least weekly.
• 19% check several times a day.
• 47% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 85% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 50% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 46% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 39% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 43% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.
• 10% say they never spend time checking whether online content is legitimate.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Oklahoma text-scam volume.

Oregon

Key takeaway: Oregon scam concerns are spilling into ordinary digital life, with 45% avoiding new apps, websites or services.

• 57% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 49% verify online content at least weekly.
• 17% check several times a day.
• 41% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 85% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 52% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 45% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 45% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 39% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Oregon text-scam volume.

Pennsylvania

Key takeaway: Pennsylvania has one of the heavier trust burdens in the survey, with 67% saying figuring out what’s real takes more mental energy.

• 67% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 54% verify online content at least weekly.
• 14% check several times a day.
• 39% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 85% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 48% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 38% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 37% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 31% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Pennsylvania text-scam volume.

Rhode Island

Key takeaway: Rhode Island scam concerns are affecting legitimate online behavior: 42% have avoided clicking a real message or link.

• 58% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 57% verify online content at least weekly.
• 11% check several times a day.
• 45% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 84% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 40% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 37% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 36% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 42% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Rhode Island text-scam volume.

South Carolina

Key takeaway: South Carolina has a confidence problem around AI scams: 13% say they are not at all confident identifying AI-created or AI-enhanced fraud.

• 57% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 47% verify online content at least weekly.
• 12% check several times a day.
• 44% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 79% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 43% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 42% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 38% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 39% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.
• 13% say they are not at all confident identifying AI-created or AI-enhanced fraud.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led South Carolina text-scam volume.

South Dakota

Key takeaway: South Dakota’s scam response is relatively restrained compared with many states, with 35% avoiding unfamiliar retailers and 29% avoiding legitimate links.

• 55% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 52% verify online content at least weekly.
• 11% check several times a day.
• 41% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 78% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 35% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 37% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 38% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 29% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led South Dakota text-scam volume.

Tennessee

Key takeaway: Tennessee residents report rising trust fatigue without matching verification habits: 59% feel more mental strain, but 48% verify weekly.

• 59% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 48% verify online content at least weekly.
• 15% check several times a day.
• 40% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 80% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 48% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 33% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 35% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 37% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Tennessee text-scam volume.

Texas

Key takeaway: Texas is one of the more active verification states, with 62% checking online legitimacy at least weekly.

• 61% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 62% verify online content at least weekly.
• 22% check several times a day.
• 46% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 81% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 41% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 30% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 32% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 30% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Texas text-scam volume.

Utah

Key takeaway: Utah has one of the highest levels of exposure to AI-generated imagery, with 49% seeing an AI image presented as real.

• 58% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 50% verify online content at least weekly.
• 8% check several times a day.
• 49% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 85% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 43% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 40% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 43% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 32% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Utah text-scam volume.

Vermont

Key takeaway: Vermont has a sizeable trust-versus-action gap: 58% report more mental effort online while 47% verify content weekly.

• 58% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 47% verify online content at least weekly.
• 12% check several times a day.
• 45% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 79% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 47% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 28% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 32% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 30% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Vermont text-scam volume.

Virginia

Key takeaway: Virginia reports comparatively low exposure to AI-generated images presented as real, at 34%, even as concern about AI scams remains high.

• 58% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 54% verify online content at least weekly.
• 15% check several times a day.
• 34% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 83% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 40% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 33% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 39% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 30% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Virginia text-scam volume.

Washington

Key takeaway: Washington has one of the highest levels of AI-scam concern in the survey, at 86%.

• 62% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 55% verify online content at least weekly.
• 15% check several times a day.
• 40% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 86% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 50% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 36% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 34% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 36% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Washington text-scam volume.

West Virginia

Key takeaway: West Virginia has one of the lower weekly verification rates in the survey, at 45%, despite a majority reporting greater trust fatigue.

• 55% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 45% verify online content at least weekly.
• 12% check several times a day.
• 43% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 81% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 41% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 25% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 29% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 31% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led West Virginia text-scam volume.

Wisconsin

Key takeaway: Wisconsin shows relatively high exposure to synthetic imagery: 46% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.

• 56% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 49% verify online content at least weekly.
• 15% check several times a day.
• 46% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 85% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 39% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 35% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 26% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 26% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Wisconsin text-scam volume.

Wyoming

Key takeaway: Wyoming has the most distressing scam-loss recovery story in the survey: 76% of victims who lost money recovered none of it.

• 64% report more mental effort figuring out what’s real online.
• 52% verify online content at least weekly.
• 11% check several times a day.
• 49% have encountered an AI-generated image presented as real.
• 78% are concerned AI is making scams harder to recognize.
• 44% have avoided unfamiliar retailers.
• 41% have ignored a legitimate call, text or email.
• 43% have avoided a new app, website or service.
• 31% have avoided clicking a legitimate message or link.
• 76% of victims who lost money said they recovered none of it.

Investment and cryptocurrency scams led Wyoming text-scam volume.

The post What Scams Look Like in Your State: A 50-State Breakdown appeared first on McAfee Blog.

The FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) issued a September 2026 public service announcement warning of a rise in government and law enforcement impersonation scams. These scams feature individuals posing as law enforcement agents leveraging threats to acquire money or personal information.

Between January 2025 and July 2026, the IC3 received nearly 61,000 complaints regarding fraudsters posing as local police, federal agents, or court officials, with reported losses exceeding $1.6 billion. Imposters use caller ID spoofing and legal threats to extract immediate payments and sensitive personal information from their targets.

How Law Enforcement Impersonation Scams Work

Law enforcement impersonation scams rely on scammers projecting authority and manufacturing urgency. Their goal is to drive you to act before you can verify the caller’s identity.

According to the IC3, fraudsters use caller ID spoofing technology to make your phone screen display the legitimate name and telephone number of a law enforcement agency or court. They build credibility by providing fake badge numbers, official-sounding department names, and fictitious case file numbers.

During these law enforcement imposter scams, callers may claim that you missed jury duty, owe outstanding court fines, face an active arrest warrant, or have a suspended driver’s license or passport. The fraudster insists that you resolve the issue immediately over the phone or online. They demand payment via non-traditional methods, including prepaid gift cards, cryptocurrency, wire transfers, or physical cash couriers. Scammers frequently follow up with text messages or emails containing links to fake government portals designed to capture payment details and login credentials.

Impersonation Scam Warning Signs and Red Flags

If you receive a call from police, local courts, or federal agencies, watch for these warning signs that you could be dealing with a scam:

• Demands for immediate payment over the phone: Legitimate law enforcement officers and court clerks will not call demanding instant payment to clear a warrant or missed jury duty summons.
• Requirements for non-standard payment methods: Requests for payment via prepaid gift cards, cryptocurrency, bank wire transfers, or physical cash couriers indicate a scam.
• Threats of immediate arrest or legal action: Imposters use aggressive tones to force rapid payment before you can verify their credentials through official sources.
• Unsolicited links in text messages or emails: Follow-up messages directing you to online payment or verification portals are designed to capture personal credentials or payment details.
• Requests for sensitive personal identifiers: Scammers ask for Social Security numbers, banking details, or account passwords under the pretense of “verifying” your record.

How to Protect Yourself From Impersonation Scams

1. Hang up and verify through official channels. Immediately disconnect if you receive a suspicious call from police or court officials. Look up the agency’s official telephone number on a public .gov website and call directly to verify claims.
2. Recognize how legitimate agencies operate. Real law enforcement officers, courts, and government agencies do not demand payment over the phone, nor do they accept gift cards, cryptocurrency, wire transfers, or cash couriers.
3. Avoid clicking links in unexpected messages. Do not click unsolicited links or download attachments in emails or text messages claiming to come from court or police portals. Type official website addresses directly into your web browser.
4. Limit public personal information. Fraudsters collect names, home addresses, and family details from social media and data broker websites to make fake scripts sound authentic. Adjust your privacy settings and submit removal requests to public data broker directories.

What to Do If You’ve Already Been Targeted

• Stop all communication immediately: Cease interacting with the scammer immediately and do not send additional money.
• Contact financial institutions: Call your bank, credit card issuer, or payment app provider right away to report the fraud and request a payment reversal or wire recall.
• Secure online accounts: Change passwords and enable multi-factor authentication on all financial and email accounts that may have been exposed.
• Freeze your credit: Contact Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion to freeze your credit files and prevent unauthorized accounts from being opened in your name.
• Report identity theft: If you shared sensitive identifiers like your Social Security number, submit a report to the FTC to get a recovery plan.
• Maintain evidence: Retain all call logs, text messages, emails, payment receipts, and cryptocurrency transaction details.

Reporting Law Enforcement Impersonation Scams

Reporting an impersonation incident promptly helps authorities track fraudulent networks and protects others from falling victim. If you encounter a fake call from police or a fraudulent court notice, submit an official report through the FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center. You should also contact your local police department to file a report, particularly if you experienced financial loss or received direct threats. Finally, inform the specific agency or court that was impersonated by calling the official directory number listed on its .gov website, allowing their security officials to issue public advisories.

The post FBI Warns of Law Enforcement Impersonation Scams: What They Are + How to Protect Yourself appeared first on McAfee Blog.

The best ways to protect your child from identity theft include freezing their credit, limiting exposure of personal information, monitoring for suspicious activity, securing family devices, and teaching safe online habits. Because children often don’t discover identity theft for years, taking preventive action early can help protect their credit, finances, and future opportunities.

Child identity theft is one of the fastest-growing forms of fraud, and many families don’t discover it until years after the damage is done. But child identity theft has surged in recent years, with 38% of U.S. survey participants reporting that a child or family member’s child had been victimized in 2025, jumping from 23% the year prior.

This guide explains how child identity theft happens, what warning signs to watch for, and the eight most effective ways to protect your child’s future.

Key Takeaways

• Children are prime targets because their Social Security numbers or national ID equivalents are a blank slate, allowing fraud to go undetected for years.
• Data breaches, phishing scams, social media oversharing, and AI-powered fraud are making child identity theft more common and harder to detect.
• In 2025, the FTC received 22,782 identity theft reports involving people 19 and under in the United States.
• AI-driven scams are making it faster and cheaper to target families and steal children’s data at scale.
• Freezing your child’s credit, monitoring for suspicious activity, and teaching safe online habits are among the most effective protective measures parents can take.

What is Child Identity Theft?

Child identity theft is a crime in which someone steals a minor’s personal information, most commonly the minor’s name, date of birth, and Social Security number (SSN) or equivalent national identifier, to commit fraud. The thief might open credit card accounts, take out loans, rent housing, file fraudulent tax returns, or claim government benefits, all in the child’s name. A 2021 Javelin Strategy study found that this crime affects one in every 50 children and costs U.S. families nearly $1 billion annually.

Why Child Identity Theft Is So Dangerous

The crime is made uniquely dangerous by the silence. Because children typically do not start applying for credit until they are 16 to 18, a thief can have more than a decade of undetected activity. As a result, by the time the victim becomes an adult, they may face:

• Damaged credit scores
• Debt collection notices
• Loan denials
• Difficulties renting housing

The crime is not confined to the United States, either. One documentary tells the story of Renata Furst Galvão, a native of Brazil, whose identity was stolen at age six and used to amass more than $400,000 in debt.

How Criminals Get Access to Children’s Information

To protect your child effectively, it helps to understand exactly who is targeting them, how they are getting in, and why the threat is accelerating. Even the most security-conscious household can be exposed through no fault of its own. In reality, information is often exposed through organizations that collect and store children’s data.

Common sources include:

1. Data breaches at retailers, healthcare providers, schools, and financial institutions could expose children’s information alongside adults’.
2. Social-engineering scams and phishing attacks may target parents directly to extract children’s details.
3. Social media profiles are prime targets for identity thieves to monitor, which is why a child posting their birthday, school name, and city in separate posts creates genuine risks. Minimize the personal details shared online and in photos.
4. Online games and apps that over-collect data, including a child’s full name, birthdate, and town, create additional opportunities for personal data exposure.

New Risks: AI Scams and Synthetic Identities

A December 2025 survey found that reports of ID theft rose from 43% in 2024 to 78% in 2025, a single-year spike that reflects how AI-powered tools have made it faster and cheaper for criminals to generate convincing phishing messages and fake identities at scale.

Synthetic identity fraud is particularly dangerous for children. It pairs a real Social Security number belonging to a minor unlikely to use it anytime soon with a fictitious name and address. The resulting fake identity can then build a credit history, take out loans, and disappear before anyone connects the dots.

Warning Signs Your Child’s Identity May Be Stolen

Catching this crime early makes the recovery process far less painful. Knowing what to look for means you will not dismiss the very clues that trigger a fast response.

Unexpected Mail, Bills and Collection Calls

The most common early indicators arrive in your mailbox or by phone, including:

• Pre-approved credit card offers in your child’s name
• Collection agencies calling to speak with your child
• Court notices or bills for accounts your child never opened

Any business mail addressed to a young child should trigger an immediate investigation.

Rejected Applications, Benefit Denials, Suspicious Debt

Many families first discover the theft during pivotal life moments. Examples include:

• A teen may be denied a learner’s permit due to fraudulent driving violations.
• A young adult may be denied an apartment because of unpaid debt on their credit report.
• Stolen Social Security numbers can interfere with access to government benefits.

Unexplained Credit Activity

Children typically should not have a credit history, so potential warning signs of identity theft include:

• A credit report exists under your child’s name
• Credit accounts appear that your family never opened
• Loan applications are associated with your child’s Social Security number
• Debt appears on your child’s credit file

If your child has a credit record before they are old enough to use credit, it may indicate identity theft.

The 8-Step Protection Plan for Parents

You can follow these steps while seeking guidance from financial educators, credit authorities, and consumer protection experts. Start small by choosing two or three today, then build from there.

Step 1: Check and Freeze Your Child’s Credit

A credit freeze is one of the most effective ways to protect your child from identity theft. If your child is under 16, request a free credit freeze from Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. This prevents anyone from opening new financial accounts in your child’s name without your authorization. Once in place, the freeze remains active until you ask the credit bureau to temporarily lift or remove it.

Because minors typically don’t have established credit files, the process for placing a freeze differs from that for adults. Each of the three major credit bureaus provides specific instructions for parents and guardians. Follow the guidance from Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion to place a freeze on your child’s credit file.

Step 2: Enable Fraud Alerts and Social Security Reports

In addition to a credit freeze, it’s smart to watch for signs that someone is using your child’s identity. Ensure that you:

• File a fraud alert with each credit bureau to prompt verification checks if someone attempts to open an account in your child’s name.
• Request an earnings report from the Social Security Administration to confirm whether wages are being reported under your child’s SSN.
• Once your child is old enough to have a legitimate credit file, teach them to stagger their use of free credit reports from the AnnualCreditReport website, checking one bureau every four months.

Step 3: Educate Your Kids about Identity Theft & Private Information

In an honest, age-appropriate conversation, explain to them that personal information is the master key to their financial future and should not be shared with online strangers. Role-playing helps: ask your child what they would do if someone they met in a game asked for their full name and home address. Empowered kids are less likely to overshare and more likely to alert you when something feels off.

Step 4: Get Fierce about Protecting Your Child’s Data

Draw a very thick line around your child’s details. Reiterate that sharing them should be limited only when truly necessary, such as school enrollment or medical forms, and only with verified institutions. Ask why it is needed, how it will be stored, and if an alternative identifier is acceptable. Keep important documents in a locked safe and shred papers with your child’s information before disposal.

Step 5: Lock Down Devices, Accounts, and Online Habits

Talk with your kids about safe internet habits. Instruct them to stay skeptical of quizzes, free offers or apps, and unbelievable promos that request personal details. Set their social media accounts to private and limit follower or friend lists to people they know in real life. Use strong, unique passwords for family accounts and enable multifactor authentication on email, school portals, and social media apps used by older children.

Step 6: Monitor for Early Warning Signs

Regularly check your household mail for notices addressed to your child. If you spot anything suspicious, contact the company directly using the contact details on its official website. Do not call the number printed on the suspicious document, as it could redirect you to the thief who sent it. Consider using an identity monitoring service that scans for your child’s data in data breaches or on the dark web and alerts you when their information surfaces.

Step 7: Get Full-Device and Network Security

Many identity theft incidents start with a compromised family device. To reduce this risk, keep operating systems, browsers, and apps fully updated. Secure your home Wi-Fi with a strong password and WPA3 encryption to prevent data interception. Comprehensive security software, such as McAfee+ Family Plans, can help you block malware, keyloggers, and phishing sites that harvest personal data from every device in your home, including the tablets and phones your children use most.

Step 8: Act Quickly If Theft Happens

If you discover or suspect your child’s identity has been stolen, immediately contact the company where the fraudulent account was opened, close the account, and request written confirmation that your child bears no liability. Report the theft to IdentityTheft.gov, follow the personalized recovery plan, and file a police report to create an official record that will help resolve disputes with creditors.

Next, contact each credit bureau to cancel fraudulent accounts, inquiries, and collection notices linked to your child’s SSN. Keep detailed records of every call, letter, and case number throughout the process. Reporting the incident to the authorities helps your family recover and supports broader enforcement efforts that protect other families.

Final Thoughts

Child identity theft is a fast-growing, serious threat worldwide, but it is also one of the more preventable forms of fraud when families take proactive steps early. Start this week by spending 10 minutes to safely lock away your child’s physical documents, then call the major credit bureaus to request a freeze on your child’s credit. Build toward the full eight-step plan over the next month to close every door that leads to potential harm.

Beyond the 8-step sprint, add a recurring data safety day to your family calendar each year to recheck credit freezes and fraud alerts, review your children’s online accounts and platform settings, update devices and passwords, and discuss emerging threats. A family that combines strong protective habits with smart security tools is a much harder target for any kind of cybercrime.

The post 8 Steps to Protect Your Child From Identity Theft appeared first on McAfee Blog.