Topic starter
10/07/2026 9:27 pm
TL;DR: Fraud teams should use targeted friction rather than blanket step-ups, because 67% of attendees said they are struggling to block fraud without flagging trusted customers, while 93% of consumers say they will accept additional security steps during checkout or login, according to Sift. The key challenge is making friction proportional, risk-based, and timely enough to protect both conversion and trust.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Sift: “How to Reduce Friction Without Compromising Fraud Security”.
By the numbers:
- 67% of attendees said they are struggling to block fraud without flagging trusted customers.
- 93% of consumers say they will accept additional security steps during checkout or login.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when fraud controls use the same friction step for every journey?
A: A single friction policy creates two failures at once: trusted customers are pushed out of low-risk journeys, while fraudsters learn the rule and stay just below it.
Q: When should organisations prioritise customer experience over more verification steps?
A: They should not treat experience and verification as a zero-sum trade-off.
Q: What are the signs that a fraud friction policy is failing?
A: Common signs include rising abandonment, repeated complaints about unnecessary checks, growing manual review queues, and fraud still getting through predictable thresholds.
Practitioner guidance
- Define journey-specific friction thresholds Set separate verification rules for signup, login, checkout, payout, and account change flows instead of using a single enterprise-wide trigger.
- Use multi-signal decisioning for step-up controls Combine device, account history, payment instrument, shipping address, and behavioural signals before escalating a challenge.
- Audit friction points against abandonment and fraud Review manual review queues, trusted-customer drop-off, complaint rates, and fraud bypass patterns on a regular cycle.
Bottom line: Fraud security works better when friction is placed at the right moment, because early or repeated checks can reduce trust and still leave room for abuse.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
10/07/2026 9:50 pm
Smart friction is a governance model, not a UX preference. The article shows that fraud controls succeed when they are aligned to risk, journey stage, and customer expectation. In identity terms, this is a decision about when assurance should increase, not whether a business is serious about security. Practitioners should treat friction as a control state that changes with context, not a fixed policy outcome.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Nearly 60% of companies reported that fraud losses were still increasing in 2025.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How do identity verification and fraud prevention work together in digital services?
A: Identity verification establishes who is entering the service, while fraud prevention checks whether the session, device, or transaction looks legitimate. In mature programmes, both share telemetry and escalation paths so suspicious behaviour can be challenged before an account takeover or payment loss is completed.
👉 Read our full editorial: Smart friction in fraud security: why timing matters most