How Online Dating Scams Work—and Who Gets Targeted
If a person is too quick to share his or her ID, it is more likely to be fake
5 min
About 30% of Americans have tried an online dating service, according to Pew Research Service. Some people have found compatible matches and even longtime partners. But other online romance ventures have ended in frustration, harassment or outright fraud.
Some of the saddest cases have seen people give hundreds or thousands of dollars to someone they met online. Some think they are lending money to help the person through a rough patch. Others believe they are being let in on a savvy investment. Both realize too late—it was a scam.
Americans reported losing nearly $1.3 billion in romance-related fraud from 2017 to 2021, according to the Federal Trade Commission, greater than any other category of fraud tracked by the agency, including online shopping scams, impostor fraud and identity theft. Even so, the FTC says that likely understates the damage since many people don’t report such losses.
To better understand why some people become victims of online dating scams, and what can be done to prevent it, The Wall Street Journal interviewed Gurpreet Dhillon, chair of artificial intelligence and cybersecurity at the University of North Texas. Dr. Dhillon has researched such fraud and considers it a major online security concern. An edited transcript of the online interview with Dr. Dhillon follows.
WSJ: Describe how an online dating scam usually begins.
DR. DHILLON: Usually, the search by the scammer for a victim starts on one of the many dating platforms. More recently, scammers also have begun targeting the more ethnically oriented dating sites as well.
Scammers typically target older, poorer, less educated and single people. They also scan dating and social-media profiles to find people who idealise romantic partners and relationships and so might be more gullible.
WSJ: What typically happens next?
DR. DHILLON: The victim is usually presented with a picture of an attractive man or woman. Typically, a perpetrator emphasizes his or her credibility and social attractiveness. Scammers often present themselves as individuals with some sort of authority, such as an influential businessperson, military personnel, a research scientist, etc.
Typically, a scammer also creates a false identity, not just on social media but by acquiring an identity document. In our research, we found many occasions where the eventual victim had asked to see an ID while in the online phase of a romance, or in person if the romance advances to that point. But scammers are savvy about creating authentic-looking fake IDs. If the person is too quick to share his or her ID, it is more likely to be fake.
WSJ: What other techniques do perpetrators use?
DR. DHILLON: Scammers sometimes use doctored pictures to show themselves with famous personalities. Some may use “deep fake” software, which allows a person to swap his or her face for that of someone else’s in a photo or video. Scammers will often research their victims to see whom they admire.
In one case in our research, the perpetrator claimed to be a nurse working at a military base in the Middle East and sent pictures of what she said was herself dressed in scrubs. At one point she sent pictures of herself with a purported Army general she said was visiting the base.
Based on information gathered during the grooming stage, the scammer expresses enthusiasm for individuals or institutions in which the victim may place trust—alumni networks, church or celebrity connections. The more successful scammers spend significant time and effort on the grooming stage before engaging in an actual fraudulent act.
WSJ: How does a scammer establish trust?
DR. DHILLON: In one elaborate scheme, a scammer reached out to the victim via Facebook, then used the publicly available information there to investigate friends and connections of the victim. The information was later used to establish social connections with the victim. Online interactions resulted in face-to-face meetings, a false promise of love and eventually a story of financial trouble and the need for help. This “spear social-engineering” attack emphasised similar likes and dislikes to that of the victim.
WSJ: How does the scammer persuade a victim to turn over money?
DR. DHILLON: The scammer may send a small gift or flowers to the victim. In return, the victim may comply with a request to send a small amount of money. Research suggests that when people comply with the first request they are more likely to comply with subsequent requests.
In one case, a 50-year-old woman was scammed by a perpetrator who posed as a high-ranking military official. The perpetrator was quite knowledgeable about military jargon and the subtleties of the job. The woman began trusting the scammer since her dad was a veteran. After establishing trust, the scammer started sending small gifts. This continued for over a year, after which the scammer asked for $5,000 on the pretext of paying a credit-card bill. The excuse was that his salary wasn’t released as he was moving back after military deployment. The scammer returned the $5,000 after about a week. A series of requests followed this, resulting in a total of $250,000 given to the scammer. All along, the victim kept believing in the individual and was confident that he would return the money. He never did.
WSJ: Do some scammers seek things beyond financial gain?
DR. DHILLON: Extorting sexual favours has been widely reported. This can happen when the perpetrator threatens the victim with distributing sexual images or intimate messages procured in the grooming stage. Sometimes a scam may result in identity theft or involuntary involvement in money laundering. In other cases, victims have been used as couriers for smuggling drugs, money and other goods.
WSJ: Why do people fall for these hoaxes?
DR. DHILLON: Romance scammers create situations with an increased likelihood of poor decision-making.
Scammers also focus on visceral triggers, where the victim believes there are significant benefits to such a relationship. In one case, the scammer insisted on the victim joining an insurance pyramid scheme, where each participant recruits and sells insurance policies to others. In the process, the scammer was showcasing the engagement’s potential profitability. The ground was being set for a potentially bigger scam.
WSJ: What types of people seem more likely to be taken in?
DR. DHILLON: While little is known about victims of romance scams, women are reported to lose the more significant sums of money. In the majority of cases, the victims are older than 40, with 50 to 59 being the most vulnerable. Data also suggest that the degree of financial loss increases with the age of the victim.
WSJ: What could dating sites do to curtail scams?
DR. DHILLON: Dating sites should have built-in technical trust-building mechanisms. Simple two-factor authentication can substantially reduce the number of fake accounts by weeding out less-sophisticated scammers. The industry also needs to develop a web-assurance seal program—an outside agency that monitors and ensures that sites comply with the policies.
WSJ: What laws are used to prosecute scammers? Are additional government actions needed?
DR. DHILLON: Electronic-theft and economic-espionage statutes can be applied in certain cases, and in others the statutes called Access Device Fraud can be applied.
The problem, however, isn’t with the legal framework. The problem is ensuring that individuals are sufficiently warned and aware of the nature, scope and breadth of romance scams. At the federal level, a governance framework is required to mandate that dating websites operate in a certain manner. Just like the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act exists for the healthcare domain, something similar is required for online dating platforms.
Copyright 2020, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. LEARN MORE
Chris Dixon, a partner who led the charge, says he has a ‘very long-term horizon’
Americans now think they need at least $1.25 million for retirement, a 20% increase from a year ago, according to a survey by Northwestern Mutual
Terrible commutes. Expensive child care. Employees explain why they will keep working from home.
4 min
What’s still keeping American workers out of the office?
At a time when restaurants, planes and concert arenas are packed to the rafters, office buildings remain half full. Thinly populated cubicles and hallways are straining downtown economies and, bosses say, fragmenting corporate cultures as workers lose a sense of engagement.
Yet workers say high costs, caregiving duties, long commutes and days still scheduled full of Zooms are keeping them at home at least part of the time, along with a lingering sense that they’re able to do their jobs competently from anywhere. More than a dozen workers interviewed by The Wall Street Journal say they can’t envision returning to a five-day office routine, even if they’re missing career development or winding up on the company layoff list.
Managers say they will renew the push to get employees back into offices later this year. The share of companies planning to keep office attendance voluntary, rather than mandatory, is dropping, according to a survey released in May of more than 200 corporate real-estate executives conducted by property-services firm CBRE, one of the largest managers of U.S. office space.
A battle of wills could be ahead. The gap between what employees and bosses want remains wide, with bosses expecting in-person collaboration and workers loath to forgo flexibility, according to monthly surveys of worker sentiment maintained by Nicholas Bloom, a Stanford University economist who studies remote work.
Escalating expenses
One reason workers say they’re reluctant to return is money. Some who have lost remote-work privileges said they are spending hundreds, or in some cases thousands, of dollars each month on meals, commutes and child care.
One supercommuter who treks to her Manhattan job from her home in Philadelphia negotiated a two-day-a-week limit to her New York office time this year. Otherwise, she said she could easily spend $10,000 a year on Amtrak tickets if she commuted five days a week.
Christos Berger, a 25-year-old mortgage-loan assistant who lives outside Washington, D.C., estimates she spends $2,100 on child care and $450 on gas monthly now that she is working up to three days a week in the office.
Berger and her husband juggled parenting duties when they were fully remote. The cost of office life has her contemplating a big ask: clearance to work from home full time.
“Companies are pushing you to be available at night, be available on weekends,” she said, adding that she feels employers aren’t taking into account parents’ need for family time.
Rachel Cottam, a 31-year-old head of content for a tech company, works full time from her home near Salt Lake City, making the occasional out-of-town trip to headquarters. She used to be a high-school teacher, spending weekdays in the classroom. Back then, she and her husband spent $100 a week on child care and $70 a week on gas. Now they save that money. She even let her car insurance company know she no longer commutes and they knocked $5 a month off the bill.
Friends who have been recalled to offices tell Cottam about the added cost of coffee, lunch and beauty supplies. They also talk about the emotional cost they feel from losing work flexibility.
“For them, it feels like this great ‘future of work’ they’ve been gifted is suddenly ripped away,” she said.
Parent trade-offs
If pandemic-era flexible schedules go away, a huge number of parents will drop out of the workforce, workers say.
When Meghan Skornia, a 36-year-old urban planner and married mother of an 18-month-old son, was looking for a new job last year, she weeded out job openings with strict in-office policies. Were she given such mandates, she said, she would consider becoming an independent consultant.
The firm in Portland, Ore., where Skornia now works requests one day a week in the office, but doesn’t dictate which day. The arrangement lets her spend time with her son and juggle her job duties, she said. “If I were in the office five days a week, I wouldn’t really ever see my son, except for weekends.”
Emotional labor
For some, coming into the office means donning a mask to fit in.
Kenneth Thomas, 42, said he left his investment-firm job in the summer of 2021 when the company insisted that workers return to the office full time. Thomas, who describes himself as a 6-foot-2 Black man, said managing how he was perceived—not slipping into slang or inadvertently appearing threatening through body language—made the office workday exhausting. He said that other professionals of colour have told him they feel similarly isolated at work.
“When I was working from home, it freed up so much of my mental bandwidth,” he said. His current job, treasurer of a green-energy company, allows him to work remotely two or three days a week.
Lost productivity
The longer the commute, the less likely workers are to return to offices.
Ryan Koch, a Berkeley, Calif., resident, went to his San Francisco office two days a week as required late last year, but then he let his attendance slide, because commuting to an office felt pointless. “I’m doing the same video calls that I can be doing at home,” he said.
Koch, who works in sales, said his nonattendance wasn’t noted so long as his numbers were good. When Koch and other colleagues were unable to meet sales quotas in recent weeks, they were laid off. Ignoring the in-office requirement probably didn’t help, he said, adding he hopes to land a new hybrid role where he goes in one or two days.
Jess Goodwin, a 36-year-old media-marketing professional, turned down an offer to go from freelance to full time earlier this year because the role required office time and no change in pay.
Goodwin said a manager “made it really clear that this is what they’re mandating right now and it could change in the future to ‘you have to be back in five days a week.’”
Goodwin, who lives in Brooklyn, N.Y., calculated that subway commutes to Midtown Manhattan would consume more than 150 hours annually, in addition to time spent getting ready for work.
Goodwin’s holding out for a better offer. She said she would consider a hybrid position if it came with a generous package and good commute, adding: “And I would also probably need something in my contract being like, ‘We’re not going to increase the number of days you have to come in.’”
Chris Dixon, a partner who led the charge, says he has a ‘very long-term horizon’
Americans now think they need at least $1.25 million for retirement, a 20% increase from a year ago, according to a survey by Northwestern Mutual
