Loading...

Survey: Most Companies Ill-Prepared for a Global Data Breach

by Michael Bruemmer 5 min read June 27, 2017

Most companies aren’t prepared to respond to a global data breach, and aren’t yet ready to comply with the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), even though it takes effect in less than a year, according to the latest Ponemon Institute report sponsored by Experian® Data Breach Resolution.

Nearly a third of the 588 information security and compliance professionals interviewed for the survey said their organizations had no global incident response plan in place, and 38 percent have a single plan that’s applied around the world. Just 27 percent reported having separate plans at the country or regional level, but even those who had a plan weren’t confident about its efficacy.

The global scope of data breaches

The number of data breaches reached a record high in 2016 — 4,149 incidents in 102 countries around the world exposed more than 4.2 billion records, according to cybersecurity company Risk Based Security. Ponemon’s survey underscores the scope of global data breaches; 51 percent of respondents reported their companies experienced a global data breach in the past five years, and 56 percent of breached companies had more than one incident.

When the GDPR goes into effect in May 2018, any company that processes and/or holds the personal data of European Union consumers will be required to comply with the regulation, regardless of where the company is located. Failure to comply can lead to fines ranging from 2 percent to 4 percent of a company’s annual global turnover.

Despite the escalating risks of falling victim to a global data breach and the possible repercussions of not complying with the GDPR, Ponemon’s survey shows a widespread lack of preparedness among companies.

Levels of unpreparedness

When it comes to preventing and responding to a global data breach, and ensuring they comply with the GDPR’s strict notification rules, many survey respondents expressed significant shortfalls in preparedness:

  • Outdated and inadequate security solutions would hinder the ability of 49 percent to cope with a global data breach.
  • Just 40 percent of respondents felt confident their organizations’ security technologies would adequately protect information assets and IT infrastructures overseas, and only 39 percent said they had the right policies and procedures to do so.
  • Slightly more than a third thought their companies could successfully manage cultural differences and privacy and data security expectations in different areas of the world.

A majority of respondents (89 percent) predicted the GDPR will significantly affect their data protection practices, and 69 percent felt non-compliance would hinder their companies’ ability to do business globally. Yet only a quarter said their companies were ready to comply with the new regulation.

While most understand GDPR is something they need to worry about, many aren’t sure what to do. The survey reveals some companies may be feeling desperate enough about the looming regulation to take drastic measures; 34 percent said their preparations include closing operations in countries with high non-compliance rates.

Timely notification of regulators and EU citizens affected by a data breach is a key component of the GDPR, yet the majority of our survey respondents (69 percent) said they would have trouble meeting the time limitations. The GDPR requires breached companies to notify regulators within 72 hours of discovering a breach, and affected consumers “without undue delay.” Half of our survey respondents said they experienced a global breach that required notification of victims. Only 10 percent were able to do so within the GDPR’s 72-hour window; 38 percent reported notification took two to five months to complete.

Obstacles to preparedness

The years-long evolution of the GDPR, which will replace older regulations, is evidence that world governments are taking data breach risks seriously. Unfortunately, our study indicates not all C-suite decision-makers are as concerned about global data breach risks as they should be and their antipathy is impairing their organizations’ ability to prepare for a global data breach.

While the security professionals surveyed cited high-volume breaches (65 percent) and breaches involving high-value information (50 percent) as the data risks that concern them the most, only 30 percent said their organization’s C-suite was fully aware of the company’s compliance status. Further, just 38 percent said their executives viewed global data regulations as a top priority.

Technology limitations and lack of executive support are significant obstacles to preparedness and compliance, but they’re not the only ones. Additionally, survey respondents cited:

  • Reluctance to make needed comprehensive changes in business practices (60 percent)
  • Not enough budget to hire staff (37 percent)
  • Unrealistic demands from regulators/regulations (35 percent)
  • Not enough money for appropriate security technology (34 percent)
  • Lack of knowledge about global data breach response (29 percent)

What companies must do

Some survey respondents indicated their organizations are taking the right steps toward preparedness and compliance. They are putting in place security technologies to quickly detect a data breach (48 percent), have tested and proven response plans (44 percent), can quickly identify whether a breach will require notification (15 percent) and are prepared to notify regulators within 72 hours of breach discovery (13 percent).

However, many organizations could be doing more to prepare for a global data breach and to comply with the GDPR. Global data breach risks continue to increase in number, scope and impact, and the potential loss of business and financial impact of a breach could prove catastrophic for affected companies. With less than a year to go until the GDPR takes effect, any company that conducts business internationally needs to act now to ensure it will be ready to deal with a global data breach when it occurs.

Related Posts

For many banks, first-party fraud has become a silent drain on profitability. On paper, it often looks like classic credit risk: an account books, goes delinquent, and ultimately charges off. But a growing share of those early charge-offs is driven by something else entirely: customers who never intended to pay you back. That distinction matters. When first-party fraud is misclassified as credit risk, banks risk overstating credit loss, understating fraud exposure, and missing opportunities to intervene earlier.  In our recent Consumer Banker Association (CBA) partner webinar, “Fraud or Financial Distress? How to Differentiate Fraud and Credit Risk Early,” Experian shared new data and analytics to help fraud, risk and collections leaders see this problem more clearly. This post summarizes key themes from the webinar and points you to the full report and on-demand webinar for deeper insight. Why first-party fraud is a growing issue for banks  Banks are seeing rising early losses, especially in digital channels. But those losses do not always behave like traditional credit deterioration. Several trends are contributing:  More accounts opened and funded digitally  Increased use of synthetic or manipulated identities  Economic pressure on consumers and small businesses  More sophisticated misuse of legitimate credentials  When these patterns are lumped into credit risk, banks can experience:  Inflation of credit loss estimates and reserves  Underinvestment in fraud controls and analytics  Blurred visibility into what is truly driving performance   Treating first-party fraud as a distinct problem is the first step toward solving it.  First-payment default: a clearer view of intent  Traditional credit models are designed to answer, “Can this customer pay?” and “How likely are they to roll into delinquency over time?” They are not designed to answer, “Did this customer ever intend to pay?” To help banks get closer to that question, Experian uses first-payment default (FPD) as a key indicator. At a high level, FPD focuses on accounts that become seriously delinquent early in their lifecycle and do not meaningfully recover.  The principle is straightforward:  A legitimate borrower under stress is more likely to miss payments later, with periods of cure and relapse.  A first-party fraudster is more likely to default quickly and never get back on track.  By focusing on FPD patterns, banks can start to separate cases that look like genuine financial distress from those that are more consistent with deceptive intent.  The full report explains how FPD is defined, how it varies by product, and how it can be used to sharpen bank fraud and credit strategies. Beyond FPD: building a richer fraud signal  FPD alone is not enough to classify first-party fraud. In practice, leading banks are layering FPD with behavioral, application and identity indicators to build a more reliable picture. At a conceptual level, these indicators can include:  Early delinquency and straight-roll behavior  Utilization and credit mix that do not align with stated profile  Unusual income, employment, or application characteristics High-risk channels, devices, or locations at application Patterns of disputes or behaviors that suggest abuse  The power comes from how these signals interact, not from any one data point. The report and webinar walk through how these indicators can be combined into fraud analytics and how they perform across key banking products.  Why it matters across fraud, credit and collections Getting first-party fraud right is not just about fraud loss. It impacts multiple parts of the bank. Fraud strategy Well-defined quantification of first-party fraud helps fraud leaders make the case for investments in identity verification, device intelligence, and other early lifecycle controls, especially in digital account opening and digital lending. Credit risk and capital planning When fraud and credit losses are blended, credit models and reserves can be distorted. Separating first-party fraud provides risk teams a cleaner view of true credit performance and supports better capital planning.  Collections and customer treatment Customers in genuine financial distress need different treatment paths than those who never intended to pay. Better segmentation supports more appropriate outreach, hardship programs, and collections strategies, while reserving firmer actions for abuse.  Executive and board reporting Leadership teams increasingly want to understand what portion of loss is being driven by fraud versus credit. Credible data improves discussions around risk appetite and return on capital.  What leading banks are doing differently  In our work with financial institutions, several common practices have emerged among banks that are getting ahead of first-party fraud: 1. Defining first-party fraud explicitly They establish clear definitions and tracking for first-party fraud across key products instead of leaving it buried in credit loss categories.  2. Embedding FPD segmentation into analytics They use FPD-based views in their monitoring and reporting, particularly in the first 6–12 months on book, to better understand early loss behavior.  3. Unifying fraud and credit decisioning Rather than separate strategies that may conflict, they adopt a more unified decisioning framework that considers both fraud and credit risk when approving accounts, setting limits and managing exposure.  4. Leveraging identity and device data They bring in noncredit data — identity risk, device intelligence, application behavior — to complement traditional credit information and strengthen models.  5. Benchmarking performance against peers They use external benchmarks for first-party fraud loss rates and incident sizes to calibrate their risk posture and investment decisions.  The post is meant as a high-level overview. The real value for your teams will be in the detailed benchmarks, charts and examples in the full report and the discussion in the webinar.  If your teams are asking whether rising early losses are driven by fraud or financial distress, this is the moment to look deeper at first-party fraud.  Download the report: “First-party fraud: The most common culprit”  Explore detailed benchmarks for first-party fraud across banking products, see how first-payment default and other indicators are defined and applied, and review examples you can bring into your own internal discussions.  Download the report Watch the on-demand CBA webinar: “Fraud or Financial Distress? How to Differentiate Fraud and Credit Risk Early”  Hear Experian experts walk through real bank scenarios, FPD analytics and practical steps for integrating first-party fraud intelligence into your fraud, credit, and collections strategies.  Watch the webinar First-party fraud is likely already embedded in your early credit losses. With the right analytics and definitions, banks can uncover the true drivers, reduce hidden fraud exposure, and better support customers facing genuine financial hardship.

by Brittany Ennis 5 min read February 12, 2026

Discover why Experian’s unified fraud prevention platform, backed by decades of data stewardship and AI innovation, is the trusted choice for enterprises seeking scalable, compliant, and transparent identity verification solutions.

by Laura Davis 5 min read December 8, 2025

Learn how you can mitigate e-commerce fraud with identity verification and fraud prevention best practices.

by Theresa Nguyen 5 min read December 3, 2025