Scaling Scam Prevention Through Shared Intelligence: Mapping the Solutions Landscape

Introduction

Fraud and scams pose a significant threat to U.S. households and are an urgent national security crisis. An estimated 1 in 5 Americans (about 50 million) have lost money to an online scam, and previous research by the Aspen Institute Financial Security Program (Aspen FSP) underscores the pervasiveness of this threat.[1], [2] In response to this crisis, Aspen FSP convened the National Task Force on Fraud and Scam Prevention (Task Force) in 2024-2025.

The Task Force identified a clear need for information sharing among the private sector ecosystem to successfully combat scams, as different organizations offer unique insights into the scam lifecycle. This recommendation, one of many outlined in Aspen FSP’s United We Stand: A National Strategy to Prevent Scams, calls for increased investment in information sharing to detect inauthentic or criminal activity, enabling private sector companies to take action to deter or disrupt scams before they harm Americans.

A growing number of platforms enable the exchange of information, insights, and signals, but many private sector leaders lack clarity about the resources on offer. During Task Force convenings, participants expressed the need for deeper understanding of these platforms—including what services they offer, what types of data they host, and how effective they are at facilitating scam prevention—to scale scam prevention efforts.

In this brief, we examine the current state of the private sector information sharing landscape and the ecosystem mapping efforts underway at other organizations, such as the Federal Trade Commission’s Information Sharing Landscape Report.[3] We also provide a basic typology to help understand the diverse information sharing ecosystem and identify recommendations and key areas for further study.

 

Key Takeaways

  • The current information sharing ecosystem is a hive of activity; there are many platforms on offer.

  • The current landscape is highly diverse, resulting in variation in the levels of data access and analytical depth that platforms offer their members.

  • No single exchange or industry possesses all data, highlighting the need for cross-sector collaboration.

  • Better measurement is needed to determine the efficacy of information sharing exchange platforms.

Methodology

This brief is based on information gathered between June 2024 and November 2025 as part of the activities of the Task Force. Insights and recommendations were solicited from participants in the Task Force’s Information Sharing Across Sectors Working Group, which surfaced a list of platforms to survey, as well as questions to ask. While not exhaustive, the inclusion of platforms in this brief was determined based on their relevance to the stated goal (i.e., public sector exchanges and non-U.S. platforms were excluded) and responses to outreach.

Data Collection: This analysis includes 12 private sector services operating in the U.S. as of November 2025 that facilitate the sharing of information, insights, and signals. We conducted interviews with providers of six platforms and collected written surveys from an additional six platforms.[4]

Providers were asked for the following information:

  • Basic platform details: Name, description, founding year, host institution, entity type, and geographic reach.

  • Levels of participation: Who can contribute or access data? What are the requirements for participation? How does the platform ensure compliance with legal and regulatory requirements for data sharing and storage?

  • Services offered: How do users access data? What analytical or other services does the platform provide? How does the platform measure success?

  • Data hosted: What types of signals are shared on this platform?

Overview of the Information Sharing Landscape

This section provides a basic typology for understanding the information sharing ecosystem—specifically, who the users and contributors are, the types of services that information sharing platforms provide, and the types of data they share. Our analysis found:

  • The current information exchange ecosystem is bustling with activity; there are many platforms already on offer.

  • Information exchange services are designed to meet specific needs—either by sector and/or by use case—and offer varying levels of analysis and access for members.

  • No single information exchange platform or industry has all the information to detect fraud and scams and identify which actionable data leads to scalable prevention is still needed across sectors.

The information exchange ecosystem is a hive of activity

At a glance, each platform in Table 1 (below) demonstrates a diverse mix of both industry-specific and multi-sector initiatives aimed at combating fraud and enhancing information sharing. More information sharing services are designed to meet specific industry needs; fewer are cross-sector. The finance sector is prominently represented (4 of 12 platforms) alongside a smaller presence from communications (2 of 12 platforms) and domains (1 of 12 platforms). Only 4 of the 12 platforms provide information, insights, and/or signals sharing services across sectors.

Table 1. Sample of Private Sector Information Exchanges

Info Exchange and Owner Platform Description Active Since Type Geographic Reach Industry Focus

Beacon Network

TRM Labs		 Connects cryptocurrency-related services and law enforcement, flagging crypto wallet addresses for blocking, seizure, and forfeiture. 2025 Public-Private Partnership International Finance (Crypto)

Domain Trust

Global Cyber Alliance		 Facilitates data sharing among registries, registrars, resellers, and hosting providers against malicious domains. 2020 Nonprofit International Domains

Fraud Intelligence Reciprocal Exchange (FIRE)

Meta		 Facilitates reciprocal sharing of fraud and scam signals between Meta and partners from the financial, retail, and telecommunications sectors. 2024 Private International Multi-sector

Global Signal Exchange

 Serves as a global clearinghouse for real-time, cross-sector sharing of scam and fraud signals and provides trend analysis into the fraud and scam supply chain. 2022 Nonprofit International Multi-sector

Intelligence Exchange

FS-ISAC		 Enables the sharing and consumption of actionable cyber intelligence across financial services industries. 1999 Nonprofit International Finance

ITG Secure Traceback Platform

Industry Traceback Group (ITG)		 Serves as the official traceback consortium under the federal TRACED Act, helping public and private sectors identify and mitigate sources of illegal spoofed calls through sharing call record details.[5] 2015 Public-Private Partnership International Communications

National Cyber-Forensics and Training Alliance (NCFTA)[6]

 Forms an operational alliance for public and private sector information sharing, analysis, and disruption of cyber and cyber-enabled threats. 2002 Nonprofit International Multi-sector

National Elder Fraud Coordination Center (NEFCC)*

 Aggregates and analyzes data on elder fraud to build intelligence packages for law enforcement and prevention. 2025 Nonprofit U.S Multi-sector

Plaid Protect

Plaid		 Provides companies with signals and insights from digital financial activity across thousands of apps and services, as well as fraud alerts contributed by businesses and consumers, to improve real-time fraud decisioning and risk assessments. 2025 Private U.S Finance

Risk Insights for Zelle®

Early Warning Services		 Delivers risk attributes and real-time fraud prevention scores for originating payments. 2021 Private U.S Finance

Secure Messaging Initiative

CTIA		 Serves as a central clearinghouse for messaging ecosystem stakeholders and government agencies to share information about suspected spam and scam text messages, including Short Message Service (SMS) and Multimedia Service (MMS). 2022 Nonprofit U.S Communications

Zelle Network® Recipient Notification

Early Warning Services		 Notifies members when they receive payments reported to the Zelle Network as fraud or scams. 2018 Private U.S Finance

Source Note: This list is not exhaustive and does not include all services that facilitate the sharing of information, insights, and signals available in the United States or globally. It provides a sample of the range of solutions available in the market today, from which we drew our analysis.

Requirements to participate

Information exchanges have varying levels of vetting procedures for participants, such as an International Organization for Standardization (ISO) accreditation, references, or an onboarding interview to establish legitimacy.[7] Other information sharing platforms require their members to have their own internal data capabilities and dedicated analytical teams. Membership across platforms ranges from completely free to contribute and access data to tiered membership prices with varying service levels, including access to aggregated data, up-to-date feeds, and the ability to make inquiries to the provider about specific data (refer to Table 2).

Findings from interviews and surveys show that the majority of industries across the scam lifecycle are both contributing to and using data in scam prevention and mitigation efforts. While this means that most industries are represented in these information sharing exchanges, it is important to note that the majority of individual companies within each sector may not yet be participating. Most companies looking for information sharing services have multiple options for solutions through which to both contribute and access relevant data, and many companies are in fact members of multiple platforms.

Private sector companies often belong to multiple information sharing platforms, and those seeking to invest in such efforts have a wide range of options to choose from. Despite this variety, however, many companies remain hesitant to join or, if they do join, are not actively participating in these platforms due to legal and regulatory concerns. These concerns represent a key barrier to broader and more effective participation.

Platforms attempt to address users' legal and regulatory compliance needs by implementing binding confidentiality agreements and establishing strict data handling rules as part of their usage requirements.

Barriers to Information Exchange

Types of Platform Participation

  • Data Contributor: Participants who share data to the platform (data in).

  • Data User: Participants that extract value from the data (data out)

  • Both Data Contributor and User: Participants can both share data with the platform (data in) and receive insights from it (data out).

Beyond access: actionable data sharing at speed and scale

Private sector companies often belong to multiple information sharing platforms, and those seeking to invest in such efforts have a wide range of options to choose from. Despite this variety, however, many companies remain hesitant to join or, if they do join, are not actively participating in these platforms due to legal and regulatory concerns. These concerns represent a key barrier to broader and more effective participation.

Platforms attempt to address users' legal and regulatory compliance needs by implementing binding confidentiality agreements and establishing strict data handling rules as part of their usage requirements.

  • Direct Database Access: on-demand access to disaggregated primary data on which participants then perform their own analysis. For example, some participating organizations are required to have their internal teams process the data.

  • Member-to-Member Sharing: a platform or communication channel for direct information sharing between two (or more) members that other members cannot access. For example, some platforms allow participants to form sharing communities which enables both intra and cross industry collaboration.

Access Services

  • Signal Quality Evaluation: an internal evaluation process that vets member-shared data for accuracy to ensure the reliability and quality of the shared data before it is acted upon.

  • Intelligence Trend Analysis: real-time, on-demand, or regular reporting from the exchange’s analysts regarding current scam trends and relevant data patterns. For example, some platforms provide real-time data dashboards or risk scoring analytics built from data shared by members, with varying levels of anonymity.

Analysis Services

  • Law Enforcement Case Bundling: specific packaging of data and intelligence trends to be shared with law enforcement.

  • Proactive Alerts: notifications to flag the presence of a high-risk actor, account, or pattern in a member’s data. For example, some platforms share feeds with members via email to alert them to ongoing scams or provide trend analysis.

Table 2. Overview of Service Offerings by Platform

Info Exchange and Owner Member to Member Sharing Direct Database Access Signal Quality Evaluation Intelligence Trend Analysis Law Enforcement Case Bundling Proactive Alerts

Beacon Network

TRM Labs
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔

Domain Trust

Global Cyber Alliance
✔
✔

Fraud Intelligence Reciprocal Exchange (FIRE)

Meta
✔
✔
✔
✔

Global Signal Exchange
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔

Intelligence Exchange

FS-ISAC
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔

ITG Secure Traceback Platform

Industry Traceback Group (ITG)
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔

National Cyber-Forensics and Training Alliance (NCFTA)

✔
✔
✔
✔
✔

National Elder Fraud Coordination Center (NEFCC)*
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔

Plaid Protect

Plaid
✔
✔
✔

Risk Insights for Zelle®

Early Warning Services
✔
✔
✔

Secure Messaging Initiative

CTIA
✔
✔
✔
✔

Zelle Network® Recipient Notification

Early Warning Services
✔
✔
✔

Source Note: Aspen FSP summary of provider self-assessment surveys.

Action Services

No single exchange or industry possesses all the data needed to fight scams at scale

No single exchange possesses all the necessary information to detect scams from beginning to end across various platforms. This limitation further highlights the need for cross-sector collaboration, which can help better identify suspicious activities and patterns. Table 3 shows that some useful data appears across exchanges; however, the extent to which it is actionable for scam prevention remains to be determined (see Areas for Further Study). 

Table 3. Types of Data Hosted by Platform

Info Exchange and Owner Domains/IP Addresses Phone Numbers Financial Account Numbers Transaction Details Email Address Crypto Addresses ID Verification

Beacon Network

TRM Labs
✔

Domain Trust

Global Cyber Alliance
✔

Fraud Intelligence Reciprocal Exchange (FIRE)

Meta
✔
✔
✔

Global Signal Exchange
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔

Intelligence Exchange

FS-ISAC
✔
✔
✔

National Cyber-Forensics and Training Alliance (NCFTA)

✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔

National Elder Fraud Coordination Center (NEFCC)*
✔
✔
✔
✔

Plaid Protect

Plaid
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔

Risk Insights for Zelle®

Early Warning Services
✔
✔

Zelle Network® Recipient Notification

Early Warning Services
✔
✔

Source Note: Aspen FSP summary of provider self-assessment surveys.

Key Recommendations

The prevailing conversation in scam prevention right now centers on a whole-of-society response to scams, including for information sharing solutions. First, we must expand information exchanges to integrate the critical insights of more across the ecosystem. Second, we must improve our ability to identify which data or signals actually provide actionable intelligence against scammers.

The ultimate goal is to use this intelligence to take down the accounts and services scammers utilize, thereby making it more difficult for them to reach potential victims and eroding the profitability of the scam business model. As outlined in United We Stand: A National Strategy to Prevent Scams, below are key recommendations related to information sharing:[8]

  • Companies and other platform operators should align on priorities and clarify definitions to promote scalable and more effective anti-scam information sharing.

  • Companies do not always know what data is most useful to other sectors to detect scam activity; therefore, decisions about what information to share should be based on a careful analysis of how useful that data is for detection.

  • Platform operators must ensure that information shared complies with relevant privacy and consumer protection principles.

  • To address real and perceived barriers to information sharing, participants in information exchanges should share insights and promising practices with peers, trade groups, and researchers.

Further research and exploration are needed to better understand the information sharing landscape. The section below provides some starting points to advance the study of information exchanges.

Areas for Further Study

Our analysis provides a baseline understanding of the information sharing ecosystem and highlights several areas that need deeper examination to fully realize the benefits of cross-sector information sharing in combating scams.

Understanding the barriers to active participation and incentives

Stakeholder interviews revealed that some companies that are already members of information sharing solutions (i.e., have run the agreements through their legal teams and often pay for access) don’t actively participate (i.e., contribute data or respond to requests for data). To better understand these barriers, future research should explore the following questions:

  • To what extent is the claim above true, and why do these companies choose not to share and receive data once they are members?

  • Which barriers require policy or regulatory change?

  • What incentives would encourage private sector participation in information sharing exchanges?

  • Which platforms have the most robust participation? Is there a particular service offering that is more or less compelling?

Actionable data sharing for scam prevention

Transforming data collection into meaningful actionable intelligence empowers both the private sector and law enforcement to respond effectively to scams and fraud. Stakeholders have shared that not enough is done with the data collected by private sector platforms (e.g., when consumers block a phishing email or ‘report junk’ on a text). Future efforts should explore:

  • How can this data be translated into actionable insights that lead to effective and scalable scam prevention?

  • Though a vast amount of data is collected, not all of it is valuable for detecting scams. How can we distinguish meaningful information from noise?

  • How often is the data bundling leading to law enforcement action or takedown of an account?

  • Which types of data are more useful for law enforcement and private sector companies?

  • What role does technology play in enhancing data sharing to enable more effective data-driven solutions against scams?

Measuring the impact of information sharing initiatives

Due to a lack of a standard measurement framework, it is challenging for information sharing services to gauge impact. Companies evaluating which information exchange to participate in would benefit from a guide to make meaningful comparisons among offerings.

Learnings from the National Task Force on Fraud and Scam Prevention Metrics Group provided metrics to consider as a starting point, which could include: the number of fraudulent account takedowns; the speed of fraudulent account takedown; the number of referrals to law enforcement; and the number of scammers blocked.[9] Going forward, research should evaluate:

  • How can we measure the effectiveness of institution-to-institution actionable signal sharing?

  • How might we evaluate whether a cross-sector information exchange is leading to a reduction in scams?

  • How can we measure whether industry-specific information sharing services are leading to takedowns within a specific sector?

Conclusion

This brief provides a baseline analysis of an active and diverse private sector information sharing ecosystem, confirming that multiple solutions are tailored to specific sector needs. However, the ecosystem’s vitality masks a critical limitation: No single information sharing platform possesses all the data required to disrupt the scam lifecycle at scale.

To move from information sharing to scalable scam prevention, the next phase of work must address three areas. First, we must incentivize active participation by moving beyond mere membership to understanding and addressing the regulatory, trust, and financial barriers that prevent companies from contributing data. Second, a deeper assessment is needed to determine what makes a platform compelling, specifically by separating data noise from actionable insight and evaluating the efficacy of analytical services and real-time feeds. Finally, the emerging information sharing industry must develop a standard metrics framework to accurately measure the efficacy of information sharing platforms, ensuring that collaboration leads directly to a measurable reduction in scam-related harm and the erosion of the scam business model.

For more detail on Aspen FSP’s recommendations for a whole-of-society approach to prevent scams, read United We Stand: A National Strategy to Prevent Scams.

Download the Strategy

Authors and Contributors

Laila Bera and Molly Rubenstein co-authored this report.

We are grateful to our Aspen FSP colleagues Erin Borġ, Kate Griffin, and Nick Bourke for their assistance, comments, and insights in the development of this brief.

Acknowledgements

This report is a product of Aspen FSP. We thank JPMorganChase, Zelle, Target, Block, Flourish Ventures, Amazon, CLEAR, and Plaid for their generous support of the National Task Force on Fraud and Scam Prevention and this report. We are also grateful to our impact partners AARP and Stop Scams Alliance. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this report—as well as any errors—are Aspen FSP’s alone and do not necessarily represent the views of its funders or other Task Force participants.

About Aspen Institute Financial Security Program

The Aspen Institute Financial Security Program’s (Aspen FSP) mission is to illuminate and solve the most critical financial challenges facing American households and to make financial security for all a top national priority. We aim for nothing less than a more inclusive economy with reduced wealth inequality and shared prosperity. We believe that transformational change requires innovation, trust, leadership, and entrepreneurial thinking. Aspen FSP galvanizes a diverse set of leaders across the public, private, and nonprofit sectors to solve the most critical financial challenges. We do this through deep, deliberate private and public dialogues and by elevating evidence-based research and solutions that will strengthen the financial health and security of financially vulnerable Americans.​ To learn more, visit AspenFSP.org, join our mailing list at http://bit.ly/fspnewsletter, and follow The Aspen Institute Financial Security Program on LinkedIn.

Endnotes

[1] Jeffrey Gottfried, Eugenie Park, and Monica Anderson, “Online Scams and Attacks in America Today.” Pew Research Center, July 31, 2025. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/07/31/online,;;-scams-and-attacks-in-america-today/. A ratio of 1 in 5 adults equates to approximately 53 million adults, based on a total U.S. Adult population of approximately 267 million. See: U.S. Census Bureau, “National Population by Characteristics: 2020-2024,” June 2025. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2020s-national-detail.html.

[2] Laila Bera, Shehryar Nabi. “A Pervasive Threat: Analyzing Recent Survey Data on Fraud and Scams” Aspen Institute Financial Security Program, 2025. https://www.aspeninstitute.org/publications/fraud-and-scams-data-analysis/.

 

[3] Federal Trade Commission. “Scams Affecting Older Adults: Key Fraud Information Sharing Mechanisms.” Accessed December 2, 2025. https://consumer.ftc.gov/features/addressing-scams-affecting-older-adults#:~:text=In%20addition%2C%20members%20of%20the%20Technology%20and%20New%20Methods%20Committee%20prepared%20a%20document%20highlighting%20examples%20of%20existing%20information-sharing%20mechanisms%20for%20combatting%20fraud.

Nick J. Maxwell. “The New Era for Financial Intelligence Sharing.” Future Financial Intelligence Sharing. March 2025. https://www.future-fis.com/newera.html.

[4] Interviews were conducted with providers of six platforms: TRM Lab’s Beacon Exchange, the CTIA Secure Messaging Initiative (SMI), the Global Signal Exchange (GSE), FS-ISAC’s Intelligence Exchange (IntelX), the National Cyber-Forensics and Training Alliance (NCFTA), Industry Traceback Group’s Secure Traceback Platform (STP).  Written surveys were collected from an additional five platforms: Domain Trust, Meta’s Fraud Intelligence Reciprocal Exchange (FIRE) Program, the National Elder Fraud Coordination Center (NEFCC), and Early Warning Services, Plaid Protect, Zelle Network® Recipient Notification & Risk Insights for Zelle®. The following institutions contributed data as well but were ultimately excluded either as reporting portals rather than exchanges, for not operating currently within the US, or are public led rather than private sector:  FTC’s Consumer Sentinel Network, FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center, MITRE’s Illicit Virtual Asset Notification (IVAN), and Tunic Pay.  

[5] Federal Communications Commission. “TRACED Act Implementation.” April 1, 2024. https://www.fcc.gov/TRACEDAct.  

[6]  Although these exchanges have a Law Enforcement bundling functionality, for this paper, we are focusing on their role in facilitating private-to-private information sharing.

[7] International Organization for Standardization. "Certification." ISO. Accessed November 19, 2025. https://www.iso.org/certification.html.

[8] Nick Bourke, Erin Borg, Laila Bera, Molly Rubenstein and Kate Griffin. “United We Stand: A National Strategy to Prevent Scams.” Aspen Institute Financial Security Program, 2025. https://fraudtaskforce.aspeninstitute.org/nationalstrategy.

[9] Refer to this website for the Task Force on Fraud and Scam Prevention Measurement Framework outputs: Aspen Institute Financial Security Program. “Fraud and Scam Measurement Framework." May 2025. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/671a80aa4a84f2359ce4d360/t/6830b13e294cb446da01973d/1748021566525/MeasurementFramework_5-23-25.pdf