Connect with us

Technology

Do you know the true cost of identity theft?

Published

on

Do you know the true cost of identity theft?

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Identity theft tied to major data broker breaches has cost Americans more than $20 billion over the past decade, according to a 2026 report from the U.S. Senate Joint Economic Committee.

That figure comes from just four breaches: Equifax (2017), Exactis (2018), National Public Data (2023) and TransUnion (2025). The estimate applies federal identity-theft loss data, including a typical loss of about $200 per victim, across hundreds of millions of exposed records.

The result is a multibillion-dollar total. It’s also a narrow one. The calculation shows reported financial losses. It doesn’t account for damaged credit files, delayed loan approvals, higher borrowing costs or the hours consumers spend restoring their financial records after misuse.

So where does that leave you?

Advertisement

Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Report
Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide – free when you join my CYBERGUY.COM newsletter.

HOW DEBIT CARD FRAUD CAN HAPPEN WITHOUT USING THE CARD

Massive data breaches at Equifax, Exactis, National Public Data and TransUnion exposed personal information that criminals later used for identity theft and financial fraud. (Nastasic/Getty Images)

What this median leaves out

The $200 figure used in the federal estimate is a median. It marks the midpoint of reported identity theft losses collected by the FTC. Many cases fall above it. FTC Consumer Sentinel data shows that losses swing widely depending on how the fraud happens. When money is moved through bank transfers or payment apps, reported median losses are markedly higher than in cases involving unauthorized credit card charges.

Loan or lease fraud can leave you with balances that need formal disputes before lenders correct the record. Reversing a charge doesn’t automatically restore a credit file. Accounts opened in your name can generate hard inquiries.

Advertisement

Missed payments linked to fraudulent loans can appear before the account is identified as fraudulent. And lenders reviewing a mortgage or auto application evaluate the report as it exists at that time. A $200 median captures a reported dollar amount. It falls short of showing how identity misuse can stifle borrowing terms or access to credit later. 

The time cost of identity theft

After identity theft, the first step the FTC directs you to take is to file a report at IdentityTheft.gov. That generates a recovery plan and an identity theft report, which can be used to dispute fraudulent accounts. This is your starting point, and not anywhere close to a resolution.

Victims are instructed to contact each affected creditor directly, close or freeze compromised accounts and request written confirmation that the account was fraudulent. If a new line of credit was opened, that often requires submitting more documentation, completing affidavits and following up until the lender updates its reporting to the credit bureaus.

The FTC also advises placing a fraud alert with one of the three nationwide credit bureaus, which must notify the others. A credit freeze must be placed separately with each bureau. If you later apply for credit, they must temporarily lift the freeze before lenders can access your credit report. The Identity Theft Resource Center (ITRC) reports that victims frequently spend weeks resolving cases involving new account fraud. Complex cases can stretch even longer, especially when collection agencies become involved or when fraudulent tax returns trigger IRS identity verification.

1 BILLION IDENTITY RECORDS EXPOSED IN ID VERIFICATION DATA LEAK
 

Advertisement

An identity theft victim in Albany, New York, looks over documents he’s gathered. Victims of identity theft frequently spend weeks disputing fraudulent accounts, contacting lenders and restoring their credit reports after stolen data is misused. (John Carl D’Annibale/Albany Times Union via Getty Images)

During that period, you may be gathering records, mailing certified letters, waiting on hold with creditors or tracking dispute deadlines. The process moves at the pace of institutional review. All this time required to repair records is part of the cost of your stolen identity.

Earlier this year, a 57-year-old woman in Los Alamitos, California, discovered her identity had been stolen after receiving a voicemail from a Hertz rental location in Miami asking when she planned to return a Mercedes-Benz. She had never rented the vehicle, reported $78,500 in losses and spent nearly 10 days trying to recover from a single stolen ID.

Here’s where identity theft becomes more expensive

In its March 2025 Consumer Sentinel Network release, the FTC said consumers lost more than $12.5 billion to fraud in 2024, a 25% increase from 2023. Identity theft made up a large share of those reports. When misuse goes undetected, it spreads.

A stolen Social Security number can be used to open multiple accounts over time. Hard inquiries appear across different credit bureaus. New lenders and collection agencies show up, and each additional account adds another dispute you need to resolve. Identity theft often doesn’t stop after the first incident.

Advertisement

The ITRC says 31.5% of general consumer victims were targeted twice in a year, and 24.6% were hit three times last year. Even though fewer people reported a first-time identity theft, repeat targeting is becoming more common. Once your information is exposed, it can be used again. Losses can grow fast, too.

The same ITRC report found that more than 20% of victims reported losses exceeding $100,000. As the fraud spreads, so does the cleanup. What starts as a single unauthorized account can turn into disputes with lenders, credit bureaus and collection agencies. That buildup over time is where identity theft becomes more expensive.

How identity theft protection and credit monitoring can help

If you rely on occasional credit checks or alerts from a single bank, you’re only seeing activity tied to one account. If fraud appears elsewhere, it may not surface until a lender flags it.

Identity protection services can track activity across all three major credit bureaus and alert you to new inquiries or accounts as they appear. Some also scan breach datasets for exposed personal identifiers, including Social Security numbers and email addresses. Earlier alerts mean fewer fraudulent accounts can accumulate before you step in.

5 MYTHS ABOUT IDENTITY THEFT THAT PUT YOUR DATA AT RISK
 

Advertisement

Identity theft tied to major data broker breaches has cost Americans more than $20 billion over the past decade, according to a Senate report. (Sara Diggins/The Austin American-Statesman via Getty Images)

Many services provide three-bureau credit monitoring and real-time alerts when there are changes to your credit report. Some also scan known data breach records for exposed personal information and connect members with fraud resolution specialists who help with documentation and disputes. Certain plans include identity theft insurance that can help cover eligible recovery costs, subject to policy limits.

Monitoring does not prevent every identity theft attempt. It can reduce how far fraud spreads and how long it takes to contain it.

See my tips and best picks on Best Identity Theft Protection at Cyberguy.com.

Kurt’s key takeaways

The numbers tied to major data broker breaches show just how expensive stolen information can become. A single exposed record may seem harmless at first, but once that information spreads through the data broker ecosystem, it can resurface again and again. For many victims, the real damage is not just the money lost. It is the time spent disputing accounts, repairing credit files and trying to stop fraud from spreading further. Identity theft rarely happens in one clean event. It often unfolds slowly as criminals reuse the same stolen details across multiple lenders, services and databases. The good news is that you are not powerless. Monitoring your credit, limiting how widely your personal information appears online and responding quickly to alerts can reduce the damage if your information is misused. The earlier you catch suspicious activity, the easier it is to stop it before it spreads.

Advertisement

Have you ever checked your credit report or searched your name online and found information about yourself that surprised you? Let us know by writing to us at Cyberguy.com.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Report
Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide – free when you join my CYBERGUY.COM newsletter.

Copyright 2026 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Technology

Aurzen’s tiny trifold projector is almost 40 percent off right now

Published

on

Aurzen’s tiny trifold projector is almost 40 percent off right now

Not all trifolds are created equal — just ask our own Allison Johnson, who recently spent time with Samsung’s ill-fated Galaxy phone. Aurzen’s Zip projector is the kind of trifold gadget we can fully get behind, though, and it’s currently on sale at Amazon for $259.99 ($140 off). You can also pick it up in several colors directly from Aurzen for the same price, or in the gold shade for a new low of $249.99.

While not nearly as powerful as Anker’s Nebula P1 and other portable projectors we’ve recently tested, the Zip is surprisingly capable despite its small stature and battery-powered operation. The snake-like 720p projector offers up to 100 lumens of brightness — meaning it will work best in dark environments, or in brighter rooms when viewing a smaller image — while its built-in battery should last about 80 minutes based on our real-world testing. That’s not exactly marathon battery life, but it’s easy enough to top off the Zip using a power bank or wall adapter.

In terms of support, the Zip can quickly connect to iPhones via AirPlay and to Android devices over Miracast, Smart View, and similar standards, allowing you to wirelessly mirror everything you can see on your phone. You can use it to watch any movies you’ve downloaded on your device, peruse your social feeds, or get in a quick session with your favorite game. It works in both landscape and portrait orientations, too, and supports Bluetooth, letting you listen privately with headphones or pair it to your favorite speaker.

The biggest downside to the Zip, at least for some folks, is that you won’t be able to use it to watch content from services like Netflix, Hulu, and HBO Max due to copyright restrictions. Aurzen does make a USB-C dongle that allows you to stream DRM-protected content, if you truly can’t get by without watching the latest episode of Euphoria. You’ll have to pay a whopping $109 for the privilege, or find another way.

Continue Reading

Technology

Fox News AI Newsletter: The AI model that’s too dangerous to go public

Published

on

Fox News AI Newsletter: The AI model that’s too dangerous to go public

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Welcome to Fox News’ Artificial Intelligence newsletter with the latest AI technology advancements.

IN TODAY’S NEWSLETTER:

Anthropic has an AI model that’s too dangerous to go public

Melania Trump turns White House tennis pavilion into AI lab for students

Advertisement

Florida murder suspect asked ChatGPT about dumping human remains days before killings: docs

LOCKS WIDE OPEN: Anthropic’s Mythos AI model, too dangerous to release publicly, is changing digital security faster than anyone is ready for – There is a new AI model called Mythos. Anthropic built it for defensive cybersecurity research. It is so effective at finding software vulnerabilities that Anthropic decided the general public cannot have it.

FUNDAMENTAL SHIFT: From rogue AI blackmailing humans to condensing school days, AI revolution already reshaping lifeFox Business explores how the artificial intelligence revolution is already fundamentally reshaping everyday life, ranging from alarming scenarios of rogue AI blackmailing humans to innovative applications condensing traditional school days.

DIVERSITY FIGHT: Trump DOJ jumps into Musk xAI court battleThe Trump Department of Justice has formally intervened in a high-profile court battle involving Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company xAI, as a broader legal and political fight over corporate diversity initiatives rapidly heats up.

FIRST LADY FUTURE: Melania Trump embraces AI education initiative in White House tech push she’s been championing – First lady Melania Trump is actively embracing a new artificial intelligence education initiative as part of a broader White House technology push that she has long been championing.

Advertisement

Melania Trump an immersive event AI event this week where students used Meta virtual reality headsets and AI-powered glasses to explore British landmarks and examine historical artifacts. (Andrea Hanks)

PRICE PAIN SPREADS: AI boom tests GOP’s midterm affordability pitchThe rapid artificial intelligence boom and its associated energy costs are beginning to test the Republican Party’s midterm pitch on affordability as economic price pain spreads among voters.

CHILLING QUERY: Florida murder suspect asked ChatGPT about dumping human remains days before killings: docsNewly released court documents revealing that a Florida murder suspect allegedly asked the artificial intelligence program ChatGPT for advice on dumping human remains just days before the killings occurred.

RACE IS ON: Kevin O’Leary details massive Utah AI data center to rival China’s tech dominanceBusiness mogul Kevin O’Leary detailed plans for a massive artificial intelligence data center in Utah designed specifically to rival China’s growing global tech dominance.

TECH FIGHT: Former Apple CEO sees OpenAI poses largest competitive threat to tech giant in years – Former Apple CEO John Sculley is sounding the alarm on artificial intelligence, warning that OpenAI currently poses the largest competitive threat the massive tech giant has faced in years.

Advertisement

BOUNCING BACK: US economic growth rebounds as AI buildout and consumer spending fuel first quarter – U.S. economic growth rebounded in the first quarter of the year from a sluggish fourth quarter, according to the Commerce Department’s latest estimate.

JOB IMPACT: Zuckerberg says Meta layoffs tied to AI spending, won’t rule out future cuts – Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has explicitly tied recent staff layoffs to the company’s massive spending on artificial intelligence, while pointedly refusing to rule out the possibility of future workforce cuts.

HEAVYWEIGHT LEGAL BATTLE: Elon Musk tells court he was fool for funding OpenAI: reportTech billionaire Elon Musk told a court that he was a “fool” for his early financial role in funding the artificial intelligence research organization OpenAI.

Elon Musk testifies during the OpenAI trial in Oakland, Calif., on April 29, 2026. (Vicki Behringer)

LEARNING ON THE JOB: Meta tracks workers to train AI agentsSocial media giant Meta is actively tracking its own workers and analyzing their internal communications in an effort to train its advanced new artificial intelligence agents.

Advertisement

Subscribe now to get the Fox News Artificial Intelligence Newsletter in your inbox.

FOLLOW FOX NEWS ON SOCIAL MEDIA

Facebook

Instagram

YouTube

X

Advertisement

LinkedIn

SIGN UP FOR OUR OTHER NEWSLETTERS

Fox News First

Fox News Opinion

Fox News Lifestyle

Advertisement

Fox News Health

DOWNLOAD OUR APPS

Fox News

Fox Business

Fox Weather

Advertisement

Fox Sports

Tubi

WATCH FOX NEWS ONLINE

Fox News Go

STREAM FOX NATION

Advertisement

Fox Nation

Stay up to date on the latest AI technology advancements and learn about the challenges and opportunities AI presents now and for the future with Fox News here.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Technology

The craziest part of Musk v. Altman happened while the jury was out of the room

Published

on

The craziest part of Musk v. Altman happened while the jury was out of the room

Okay, I am not a lawyer so I only understood about half of what just happened. But I am fairly sure, given the context, that Elon Musk’s lawyers may have just fucked up big.

Jared “James Brickhouse” Birchall, Musk’s finance guy and all-around fixer, took the stand after Musk today. Most of his testimony was dull and seemed to exist primarily to get some documents read into the record, which sucks but is a normal part of sitting through trials. But at the very end of his boring testimony something interesting happened. I believe we all got a surprise, something that rarely happens in courtrooms.

The lawyer conducting his direct examination was passed a note by another member of the team, and asked Birchall what was apparently contained on the note: was he familiar with the xAI bid for OpenAI’s assets?

“Sam Altman was on both sides of the table.”

“As I recall, a lawyer we were working with had asked the attorney general of California to ensure that in their fiduciary duty, proper value was being given to the assets of the nonprofit of OpenAI,” Birchall said. In his understanding, there was a negotiation “between Sam Altman and himself on both sides of the table, the for-profit and the non-profit, attempting to discount the value of the non-profit assets. And we made that bid in an attempt to properly account for the value the foundation had, and create a market bid that would need to be considered by the attorney general.”

Advertisement

Here’s some lore: in February 2025, a Musk-led coalition made a $97.4 billion bid for the non-profit that controls OpenAI. The bid was submitted by Marc Toberoff, one of Musk’s lawyers in the current case. This bid happened as OpenAI was restructuring itself so that the for-profit arm could be cleared to go public. In Birchall’s testimony, that bid was made because Musk, Birchall, and others, thought Altman might undervalue the nonprofit as the company restructured itself. (I’m not really sure why that would be a problem for Musk and xAI, frankly, but whatever.)

The defense counsel objected, and Birchall’s rant was struck for lack of foundation. So we did this piece by piece to establish the foundation, ending with Birchall saying, again, “Sam Altman was on both sides of the table.”

On cross-examination, Bradley Wilson from Wachtell Lipton — OpenAI’s lawyers — picked the thread back up. Wilson asked how much of this Birchall had learned from sources other than lawyers. Birchall said he’d have a hard time being able to untangle that. After a few more exchanges, Wilson moved to strike all of Birchall’s testimony about the xAI bid on grounds that would not be discussed in front of the jury.

“You must have been very convincing. You’re not very convincing today.”

The jury got to leave early while the lawyers duked it out, and this is where it got weird. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers started asking Birchall questions herself, and it clearly was making Birchall nervous. Birchall said he doesn’t remember discussing the xAI bid with Musk or Shivon Zilis or any other principal of the Musk organization. It sure sounded like Musk’s lawyers hadn’t given OpenAI proper discovery on this topic in the depositions, and so we were doing a fast and dirty deposition with the judge right then. At one point, Gonzalez Rogers told the plaintiff’s counsel to quit coaching the witness.

Advertisement

Birchall said he’d spoken to the other members of the consortium about the bid, but that he wasn’t involved in discussions with Musk about when to send the bid letter. He claimed he’d heard some things from Toberoff, but that he wasn’t aware that Toberoff represented some of the other bidders. He didn’t know if xAI was aware that Toberoff represented some of the other bidders, either.

Birchall didn’t know whether other investors had first-hand information about OpenAI, he claimed. No one had documents from inside OpenAI as far as he knew. Gonzalez Rogers remained unconvinced. “I’m still struggling with how you can have conversations with these individuals to raise $97.5 billion but have no recollections even in a general sense,” she said. Birchall said he had a general sense — he called each of the people involved to see if they were interested in joining Musk on the bid.

“Why would they do that?” Gonzales Rogers asked. Birchall said these were people with whom Musk et al had longstanding relationships. “You must have been very convincing,” she said. “You’re not very convincing today.”

Birchall said there were no numbers besides the topline one floated when he called prospective investors, and that after speaking with him, they were passed off to lawyers. He didn’t remember who chose the $97.4 billion number, and said he got it from the legal team, telling Gonzalez Rogers he didn’t get it from Musk. Gonzalez Rogers asked if that analysis was created by anyone besides Toberoff. Birchall said not that he could recall.

“Did a lawyer tell you this was part of litigation?” Gonzalez Rogers asked.

Advertisement

No, Birchall said. It was strictly a business deal.

Apparently Steven Molo, who’d been defending Musk during the deposition, had made multiple objections to questions about the deal, citing privileged communications. Business deals, apparently, aren’t privileged. But all discovery into the xAI bid for OpenAI had been blocked before the trial began. Unfortunately, by asking Birchall about the xAI deal at the very end of the direct examination, Musk’s team may have opened the door for more digging into it. You may be wondering, “open the door to what” and your guess is as good as mine. More discovery? Maybe something about anticompetitive behavior from Musk? It doesn’t sound like it’s going to be good for Musk, I can tell you that much.

Gonzalez Rogers then asked who’d passed the note, and all the lawyers just sat there like guilty children. Finally, the guy responsible said he’d passed it, but he didn’t write it; a junior lawyer did. Who wrote it? More silence. Finally Toberoff — hardly a junior lawyer — stood up and took responsibility. Why had he done it? “I thought it was appropriate.”

“Sounds like you wanted to open the door, then,” Gonzalez Rogers said. We adjourned while she said she’d consider what to do with this testimony. She will probably rule on it tomorrow.

Correction, April 30th: It is Shivon Zilis, not Sharon Zilis.

Advertisement
Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending