Call Center Fraud Prevention: Protecting Your Business and Consumers

by Brian Funicelli 6 min read September 26, 2024

In today’s digital age, call center fraud is a growing threat that businesses can no longer afford to ignore. As fraudsters become increasingly sophisticated, it’s crucial for companies to implement robust security measures to protect both their operations and their consumers.

Various forms of call center fraud can have a significant impact on businesses. To prevent this, companies can use effective strategies including multifactor authentication solutions and account takeover prevention techniques.

But first, what is call center fraud?

Understanding call center fraud

Call center fraud occurs when fraudsters exploit vulnerabilities in customer service operations to gain unauthorized access to sensitive information and commit identity theft. This type of fraud can take many forms, including social engineering, which occurs when a fraudster manipulates a call center agent into providing information or access, and phishing, which occurs when fraudsters use deceptive tactics to obtain confidential details from unsuspecting individuals.

One of the most concerning tactics used by fraudsters is impersonation, or pretending to be legitimate consumers to gain access to accounts. Once they have access, they can make unauthorized transactions, change account details, or even take over the account entirely—a scenario known as an account takeover. The impact of these fraudulent activities can be devastating, leading to significant financial losses, damage to brand reputation, and a loss of consumer trust.

Key strategies for preventing call center fraud

According to recent research, account takeover fraud has increased by 330% in the past two years, projecting to cost $6.24 billion globally.[1] In addition, the number of U.S. consumers who have experienced account takeover has increased from 22% in 2021 to 29% in 2023.[2]

To effectively combat call center fraud, businesses must adopt a multi-layered approach that includes advanced technological solutions, comprehensive employee training, and real-time monitoring. Here are some of the most effective strategies:

1. Implementing multifactor authentication (MFA) solutions

One of the most effective ways to secure consumer interactions is by implementing multifactor authentication (MFA) solutions. MFA requires users to provide two or more verification factors to gain access to an account or complete a transaction. This adds an extra layer of security, making it significantly more difficult for fraudsters to succeed even if they have obtained some of the consumer’s information.

MFA can be integrated into call center operations in several ways. For example, businesses can use voice recognition as a biometric factor, requiring consumers to verify their identity through a unique voiceprint. Other methods include sending a one-time code via text message, which the consumer must provide during the call, or using mobile app verification, where consumers approve transactions directly through their smartphones.

2. Account takeover prevention

Account takeover is one of the most serious threats to call centers, as they involve fraudsters gaining control of a consumer’s account, often with disastrous consequences. To prevent account takeover, businesses can employ a combination of technological solutions and best practices.

First, understanding what account takeover entails is crucial. It typically begins when a fraudster obtains some of the consumer’s personal information—often through phishing, social engineering, or a data breach. They then use this information to impersonate the consumer and convince call center agents to provide them with access to the account.

To combat this, businesses can employ several account takeover prevention techniques. Anomaly detection systems can flag unusual activities, such as login attempts from unfamiliar locations or devices, prompting additional verification steps. Behavioral biometrics is another powerful tool, analyzing patterns in how users interact with their devices to detect inconsistencies that may indicate fraud. Continuous authentication, where the system continuously verifies the user’s identity throughout the session, is also effective in catching fraudsters in the act.

3. Training and awareness

Technology alone may not be enough to entirely prevent call center fraud—human factors are equally important. Regular training for call center staff is essential to ensure team members can recognize and respond to potential fraud attempts. Employees should be trained to identify common tactics used by fraudsters, such as social engineering, and to follow strict verification procedures before providing any sensitive information.

Awareness campaigns can also play a significant role in preventing fraud. Internally, companies should run regular campaigns to remind employees of the importance of adhering to security protocols. Externally, educating consumers about the risks of fraud and encouraging them to use security features like MFA can help reduce the likelihood of successful attacks.

4. Real-time monitoring and analytics

Real-time monitoring is a critical component of an effective fraud prevention strategy. By continuously monitoring calls and transactions, businesses can quickly identify and respond to suspicious activities before they escalate. Advanced analytics tools, including voice analytics and behavior analysis, can provide valuable insights into potential fraud, allowing companies to take proactive measures.

Voice analytics, for instance, can detect stress or hesitation in a caller’s voice, which may indicate that they are not who they claim to be. Behavior analysis can track how consumers typically interact with their accounts, flagging deviations from the norm as potential fraud. Continuous improvement is key here—regularly reviewing and updating monitoring protocols ensures that businesses stay ahead of evolving threats.

Preventing call center fraud in your business

By using a multi-layered fraud approach through a variety of authentication solutions, your business can quickly detect call center fraud without disrupting your consumers’ experience.

Identify the risk

  • Identity-based risk detection can pinpoint when a specific identity may be in the hands of fraudsters.
  • Device intelligence solutions can recognize the risk associated with a specific device used to attempt online access.

Address the risk

  • MFA services can generate and deliver a one-time password to a consumer’s mobile device to verify their identity in real time.
  • Document verification allows your business to collect and verify images of identity documents uploaded from a consumer’s mobile device.

Protect your business and your consumers from call center fraud

Call center fraud is a significant threat that requires a proactive and comprehensive approach to prevention. By implementing strategies such as multifactor authentication solutions, account takeover prevention techniques, and robust employee training, businesses can significantly reduce their risk of falling victim to fraud.

In today’s fast-paced digital world, staying vigilant and proactive is the key to safeguarding your call center against fraud. Act now to protect your business and maintain the trust of your consumers.

Enable your call center to detect risk quickly and effectively with our robust fraud prevention solutions.

This article includes content created by an AI language model and is intended to provide general information.

[1] Worldmetrics.org, Account Takeover Statistics: Losses to Reach $6.24 Billion Globally, 2024.

[2] Security.org, Account Takeover Incidents are Rising: How to Protect Yourself in 2024.

Related Posts

How Consumer Vehicle Choices Are Shaping Automotive Loan Trends

Conversations about rising auto loan balances and higher monthly payments has often centered around increasing vehicle prices and elevated interest rates; and while those factors have undoubtedly played a role, another important piece of the puzzle is the type of vehicles consumers are choosing to purchase. According to Experian’s Automotive Consumer Trends Report: Q1 2026, consumers are continuing to opt for SUVs over other vehicle types, a trend that may be contributing to higher average loan amounts and monthly payments. SUVs accounted for 63.5% of all new retail vehicle registrations over the last 12 months, up from 62.8% a year ago. Additionally, more than 117 million SUVs were in operation across the United States in the first quarter of 2026, making up 42.2% of the market share. At the same time, traditional passenger cars continue to fall in share, coming in at 16.5%, a decrease from 18.4% last year. As consumers increasingly gravitate towards the larger vehicle segment, it reflects the ongoing desire for versatility, cargo capacity, and family-friendly functionality. Electrification’s growing role in consumer purchasing behavior Interestingly, electrified SUVs continue to gain traction, representing 27.7% of all new SUV registrations, these vehicles include battery-electric, hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and other alternative fuel types. Diving a bit deeper, the Tesla Model Y was the market share leader for new, retail electrified SUV registrations in the last 12 months, coming in at 15.8%. Rounding out the top five were Honda CR-V (9.6%), Toyota RAV4 (7.2%), Chevrolet Trax (7.2%), and Toyota Grand Highlander (3.4%). As model availability and familiarity with the electrification segment grows, the broader adoption of these vehicles are playing an increasingly important role in vehicle pricing and overall consumer demand. While average loan amounts and monthly payments are being driven by a combination of factors such as financing costs and consumer purchasing behavior, data in Q1 2026 demonstrates the continued interest in SUVs. This suggests that the industry’s shift toward larger vehicles is likely playing a meaningful role in today’s financing environment. To learn more about SUV insights, view the full Automotive Consumer Trends Report: Q1 2026 presentation.

Published: June 17, 2026 by Kirsten Von Busch
When New Data Impacts MBS Pricing: Student Loan Debt

In our previous post, we described the Current Second Lien Balance field, which is one of over 2,000 fields in the new Experian Mortgage Loan Performance (MLP) dataset. We showed that the Current Second Lien Balance field meets our three-pronged materiality standard for new data delivery: New: Provides information not available in existing datasets (i.e., orthogonal to currently available data). Material: Impacts a sizeable portion of the MBS universe. Significant: Differentiates collateral performance by a large enough margin to influence trading and risk management decisions. In this article, we discuss another field that satisfies the above criteria: Student Loan Balance.  We evaluate this field in the context of these criteria. First, however, we provide a summary of the MLP dataset and how it compares to standard GSE loan-level data available today. Standard GSE Data vs. Experian Mortgage Loan Performance (MLP) Data The MLP dataset contains thousands of fields describing mortgage performance from each borrower, loan, and property perspective, all refreshed monthly (including, amongst other things, new credit scores and refinance inquiry activity, loan performance, filed junior liens, and AVM values).  MLP differs from loan-level data provided byFreddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and Ginnie Mae, which the vast majority of market participants solely rely on, in a number of ways: Standard data provided by the GSEs and GNMA does not contain all the information necessary for accurate forecasting of mortgage prepayment and credit performance. Basic, critical fields like borrower’s current credit score and current junior liens on the property are missing. The new Mortgage Loan Performance (MLP) dataset from Experian contains borrower, loan, and property data fields covering the entire mortgage universe, including Agency, Non-Agency, and Esoteric mortgage products (CES, HELOC, Reverse), both securitized and non-securitized. MLP enables full three-dimensional (borrower + loan + property) tracking with persistent keys for borrower (before and after refinancing), loan (in securities/deals even after exit due to payoffs or buyouts, including before and after MSR sales), and property.  This enables end-to-end analysis of each borrower’s (and property’s) mortgage experience throughout their credit lifecycle. New, Material and Significant Field:  Student Loan Debt MLP contains a number of fields describing each mortgage borrower’s student debt load, including amounts in repayment, forbearance and collections; estimated interest rate, time remaining until forbearance expiration, and more. In the interest of simplicity, for this article we’ll focus on a single student loan-related field within MLP: Student Loans Balance, which is defined as the total balance on open non-deferred student trades reported in the last 3 months. Is Information Regarding Student Loans New to Markets? Standard loan-level data disclosed by the GSEs and GNMA contain no student-loan-specific fields. Theoretically, fields related to DTI at origination might capture some aspect of student loan debt. So, in the best case scenario for an investor relying solely on standard disclosure, a DTI value as of origination is provided -- yet is never updated as the loan seasons and the borrower’s debt and income change (see more here).  But in the case of federal student loan debt attached to mortgages originated from early 2020 to late 2023, the level of detail provided by disclosure may be even more unknown due to COVID-era repayment and reporting moratoriums. The student loan repayment moratorium was a temporary federal policy that paused required payments, set interest rates to 0%, and suspended collections on most federally-held student loans. The moratorium began in March 2020, with payments resuming in October 2023, making it approximately 3.5 years in duration—the longest consumer credit payment pause in U.S. history. (Source: NCUA ) During the moratorium, student loan-related debt loads may have been understated as federal loans were in a temporary state of $0 repayment.  As an alternative to leaving student loan debt completely out of DTI calculations, an imputed payment equal to only 0.50% of the outstanding balance was often used as a placeholder for a borrower’s DTI calculation. As a result, mortgages originated during the moratorium may have artificially low reported DTIs for borrowers with student loan debt, materially understating true post-moratorium debt .  Accordingly, prepayment risk for these loans is likely overstated in mainstream market models. Standard data only reports information related to the primary mortgage and does not include any details on the borrower’s other debts with the exception of DTI at origination, which is never updated throughout the life of the loan. In contrast, MLP provides a comprehensive view of the borrower’s full credit profile, including other obligations such as credit cards, mortgages on other properties, student loan balances, and much more. Is Student Loan debt material to the residential mortgage market? Approximately $11 trillion of residential mortgage loans were originated during the student loan payment moratorium (Source: Experian MLP Dataset), a period marked by historically low mortgage rates during the COVID era.  As discussed above, DTI data contained in standard market disclosure may be particularly inaccurate for these loans. As the Wall Street Journal recently reported, a new report from the Federal Reserve of New York shows a rise in student loan default rates by age group.  Student l Of today’s $13 trillion in outstanding mortgage debt, more than 10% of that debt ($1.5 trillion) is associated with borrowers who carry student loan debt.  For these borrowers, the average amount of student loan debt outstanding is approximately $50,000, versus a mortgage balance of approximately ~$289,000. In other words, the average student loan debt balance is almost 20% of the mortgage balance for the average borrower who carries both. For this set of borrowers, the average monthly payment is approximately $400 for student loan vs. approximately $2,200 for 1st lien mortgage—so that monthly student loan payments are a significant debt load, approximately 20% of the monthly mortgage payment.  (Source:  Experian MLP Dataset) Is the effect of student loan debt a significant driver of performance? Figure 1 illustrates prepayments by student loan balance for a sample of loans drawn from MLP. The chart illustrates that borrowers with larger student loan balances prepay much more slowly, likely because some are effectively locked out of refinancing once student loan payments resume due to elevated DTI. The debt-to-income (DTI) ratio calculated using actual student loan payments may be significantly higher than the DTI calculated during the moratorium, in some cases exceeding GSE eligibility thresholds. As illustrated in Figure 1, for in-the-money (ITM) collateral, the differential between loans with material student loan balances (greater than $200,000) and loans with no student debt can reach up to 5 CPR. Notably, even for out-of-the-money (OTM) collateral, loans with student debt prepay 1 to 3 CPR slower, likely reflecting reduced mobility due to tighter financing constraints when purchasing a new home. Pools with otherwise similar prepayment characteristics may exhibit different prepayment behavior depending on the distribution of student loan exposure within their collateral. In addition, because loans with student debt tend to prepay more slowly, this effect increases over time due to burnout: loans without student debt prepay and exit the pools more quickly, leaving a higher concentration of slower-paying loans behind.  Given that 10% of the $13 trillion outstanding mortgage market is associated with borrowers who have student loans (Source:  Experian MLP dataset)—and that student loans have a meaningful impact on prepayments—many pools issued between March 2020 and October 2023 may be subject to this student loan debt CPR throttle, and therefore mispriced by investors relying exclusively on standard market data. Fig 1. Prepayment S-Curve: Student Loans Balance Source:  Experian MLP dataset hosted on IVolatility Data-Driven Platform   _____________________________________________________ Michael Pyatski advises MBS traders, portfolio managers, quants, risk managers, loan originators, and technology professionals on making informed, data-driven business decisions that drive revenue growth, enhance risk management, and reduce trading costs. With more than 15 years of experience as an Agency RMBS trader—including serving as Head of the Proprietary Trading Desk at BNP Paribas—Michael developed and successfully implemented relative-value, data-driven profitable trading strategies to capture market opportunities embedded in data but not fully priced by the market. His trading experience, combined with a Ph.D. in econometrics, led him to found the Data-Driven Portal (https://datadrivenportal.com/), a platform that provides advanced technology for MBS trading and risk management. The platform’s No-Model Data-Driven technology leverages big data, econometric analysis, and AI to help traders identify relative-value opportunities in RMBS markets and generate above-market, risk-adjusted returns. _____________________________________________________

Published: June 17, 2026 by Perry DeFelice
Empowering merchants to reduce first-party fraud and chargebacks

Reduce first-party fraud and chargebacks with data-driven strategies that help merchants prevent disputes, protect revenue and improve customer trust.

Published: June 15, 2026 by Charles Hunter

Subscribe to our thought leadership

Enter your name and email for the latest updates.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Subscribe to our thought leadership

Don't miss out on the latest industry trends and insights!
Subscribe