Academic

Some research I?ve been doing on consumer fraud had me running across a Federal Trade Commission survey on complaints related to consumer fraud in general and identity theft in particular.  The survey reflected data from self-reported consumer complaints (and hence was not a nationwide survey) for January through December 2007.

For 2007, Colorado was the state with the largest number of consumer fraud complaints per capita?displacing Utah, which held the position in 2006.  Thus, Colorado had 233.8 consumer fraud complaints per 100,000 people in its general population, for a total of 11,364 complaints.  The state with the least number of consumer fraud complaints was Mississippi, which had 90.6 complaints per 100,000 people, for a total of 2,644.  The next two states with the lowest number of consumer fraud complaints were North Dakota and South Dakota.   

Apparently, identity theft is by far the most prevalent form of consumer fraud, and has been so for eight years in a row--explaining why so many governmental agencies and other entities have focused on ways to combat it.  Arizona was the state with the largest number of identity theft complaints per capita.  Hence Arizona had 137.1 identity theft complaints per 100,000 people in its population, for a total of 8,688 total victims. Once again, the two states at the bottom of the list in terms of identity fraud were North Dakota and South Dakota.  It is probably no surprise that in terms of total number of complaints, no state beat California, with 61,409 consumer fraud complaints and 43,892 identity fraud complaints.  Unfortunately, my own state of Maryland ranked 6th in terms of consumer fraud complaints and 10th in terms of identity fraud complaints.  Interestingly, at least in terms of consumer fraud complaints, Maryland ranked behind Alaska, which came in at number 5.

One the one hand, the survey does suggest that there may be places to which one can escape if seeking to avoid consumer fraud?like the Dakotas.  And yet, the survey also underscores the fact that fraudsters do not direct their schemes into particular states.  Rather, the predominant manner in which victims are contacted is through the Internet over email, suggesting that any state could find itself in the unenviable position of consumer fraud or identity fraud capital of the nation.