2026 Consumer Trust Outlook

DigiCert commissioned Vitreous World to conduct an independent online survey of 6,000 adults who use personal email in October 2026. The results cover email authenticity, verified brand logos, online retail trust marks, and the authenticity of online images and videos. This report presents the 20 main survey questions and their results.

{{anchor:Study overview}}

Study overview

{{anchor:Screening criteria}}

Screening criteria

• Aged 18 or over
• Resident of the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Australia or New Zealand
• Uses a personal email account and checks it at least occasionally

{{anchor:Reading the results}}

Reading the results

Questions are presented in survey order. Where a question covers several statements, the shared question wording and individual statements are presented together.

Percentages are weighted and rounded; totals may differ from 100% because of rounding or multiple responses. Image comparisons reflect stated intentions rather than actual behavior.

Appendix A compares brand preference in 2025 and 2026 across the four countries surveyed in both years. Germany was added to the survey in 2026 and, therefore, not included in the year-over-year comparison.

{{anchor:Q1 Suspicious emails}}

Q1 Receipt of suspicious emails

In the past 12 months, how often have you received (a) suspicious email(s)? Suspicious emails include messages you thought might be a scam, phishing attempt, or otherwise fraudulent.

Base: all respondents; n = 6,000.

Summary: 89% reported receiving a suspicious email at least once during the previous 12 months.

Market note: US respondents were the most likely to report suspicious emails many times or regularly: 45% (weighted base: 2,000).

{{anchor:Q2 Brands in suspicious emails}}

Q2 Brands associated with suspicious emails and uncertain content

In the past 12 months, which types of brands or organizations have suspicious emails appeared to come from?

In the past 12 months, which types of brands or organizations, if any, have you trusted less because you were unsure whether an image or video associated with them was genuine or misleading?

Suspicious-email column: n = 5,346; weighted base = 5,350. Image/video column: n = 6,000.

Summary: Among recipients of suspicious emails, 53% reported messages appearing to come from parcel or delivery companies and 38% from retailers or online marketplaces. Separately, 26% of all respondents reported trusting retailers or online marketplaces less because of uncertainty about an associated image or video.

Multiple responses permitted in each column.

Market note: Among UK recipients of suspicious emails, 63% recalled parcel or delivery messages, the highest share across markets (weighted base: 1,804). This measures recipients, rather than email volume.

{{anchor:Q3 Actions before recognizing fraud}}

Q3 Actions before recognizing possible email fraud

In the past 12 months, have you done any of the following before realizing that an email was, or might have been, fraudulent?

Base: all respondents; n = 6,000.

Summary: 42% reported at least one listed action before realizing that an email was, or might have been, fraudulent.

Multiple responses permitted.

Age note: 59% of respondents aged 25 to 34 reported at least one listed action before realizing that an email was, or might have been, fraudulent. The figure for ages 18 to 24 also rounds to 59%. Weighted bases: 1,038 and 670, respectively.

{{anchor:Q4 Actions from uncertainty}}

Q4 Actions taken because of authenticity uncertainty

In the past 12 months, which of the following have you done because you were...

Unsure about email authenticity

Unsure about website authenticity or safety

Base: all respondents; n = 6,000.

Summary: Email uncertainty: 43% deleted or abandoned it or left before completing; 17% delayed an action or purchase; 11% purchased from another retailer.

Multiple responses permitted in each column.

{{anchor:Q5 Confidence identifying fraud}}

Q5 Confidence identifying email fraud and altered content

How confident are you that you could do each of the following?

Identify a fraudulent email if it were professionally written and designed and appeared to come from a brand or organization you use

Tell whether an online image or video is genuine or has been AI-generated or misleadingly altered

Base: all respondents; n = 6,000.

Summary: 70% were very or quite confident they could identify the described fraudulent email; 59% were very or quite confident about identifying genuine versus AI-generated or altered images and videos.

Age note: 82% of respondents aged 25 to 34 were very or quite confident they could identify the described fraudulent email, the highest share among the age groups. Weighted base: 1,038.

{{anchor:Q6 Checkout page comparison}}

Q6 Checkout page comparison

Imagine that you are buying from an online retailer you have not used before. Based only on the checkout page shown here, how likely would you be to complete the purchase?

Without verified mark: n = 2,737; weighted base = 2,743. With verified mark: n = 2,742; weighted base = 2,746. Combined: n = 5,479; weighted base = 5,489.

Summary: 32% of those shown the checkout without the verified mark said they were likely to complete the purchase, compared with 31% shown the checkout with the verified mark.

{{anchor:Q7 Website trust mark}}

Q7 Likelihood with an explained website trust mark

Some websites display a clickable trust mark that confirms the website's domain, the identity of the organization operating it and information about its security. Compared with the same website without this trust mark, how would displaying it affect your likelihood of doing each of the following?

Base: all respondents; n = 6,000.

Summary: 51% said the described trust mark would make them more likely to complete a purchase; 47% said it would make them more likely to enter payment information.

{{anchor:Q8 Email checks}}

Q8 Checks used to assess an email

Before opening, clicking or acting on an email, which three things do you rely on most to decide whether it is genuine?

Base: all respondents; n = 6,000.

Summary: 42% selected requests for money, passwords, or personal information; 38% selected spelling and grammar; 36% selected the full sender address or domain. Respondents could select up to three checks.

Multiple responses permitted.

Age note: 49% of respondents aged 65 and over selected spelling and grammar among their three main checks, the highest share among the age groups. Weighted base: 1,306.

{{anchor:Q9 Retail email comparison}}

Q9 Retail email comparison

Imagine that this email appeared in your inbox. How likely would you do each of the following?

Without verified logo: n = 2,997. With verified logo: n = 3,003. Weighted bases are the same as the respondent counts.

Summary: For opening the email, the likely share was 34% with a verified logo and 29% without. For clicking a link, the figures were 25% and 21%; for purchasing, 20% and 17%.

Likely combines Very likely and Somewhat likely. Remaining response categories: Neither likely nor unlikely; Somewhat unlikely; Very unlikely; I am not sure.

{{anchor:Q10 Verified sender awareness}}

Q10 Awareness of verified sender indicators

Before taking this survey, were you aware that these logos can be used as an indicator of a verified sender?

Base: all respondents; n = 6,000.

Summary: 60% were aware that inbox logos can indicate a verified sender; 40% were not aware.

{{anchor:Q11 Brand choice}}

Q11 Brand choice when offers are similar

If two competing brands sent you a similar offer, which brand would you be more willing to choose based on how the emails appeared in your inbox (before opening the email)?

Base: all respondents; n = 6,000.

Summary: 52% selected the brand displaying its official logo in the inbox. The four-market comparison with 2025 appears in Appendix A.

The second response label is abbreviated.

{{anchor:Q12 Safety after verification}}

Q12 Feelings of safety after verification

Knowing that the logo has been independently verified and is displayed after the sender passes email authentication checks, how would this affect how safe you feel opening or acting on the email?

Base: all respondents; n = 6,000.

Summary: 76% said they would feel somewhat or much safer opening or acting on the email after the independent logo verification and email authentication described in the question.

{{anchor:Q13 Black Friday offers}}

Q13 Response to an unverifiable Black Friday or Cyber Week offer

During Black Friday or Cyber Week, what would you be most likely to do if an emailed offer looked attractive, but you could not verify that it came from the brand?

Base: all respondents; n = 6,000.

Summary: 26% selected deleting the email, 20% selected ignoring or abandoning the offer, and 9% selected reporting it. A further 24% would visit the brand's website or app independently; 3% selected opening or clicking despite uncertainty.

This is a single-choice most-likely-action question. The three delete, ignore/abandon, and report categories together represent approximately 55%; delete plus ignore/abandon represents approximately 46%.

{{anchor:Q14 Uncertain images or videos}}

Q14 Actions because of uncertain images or videos

In the past 12 months, which of the following have you done because you were unsure whether an online image or video was genuine?

Base: all respondents; n = 6,000.

Summary: 35% reported deciding not to purchase a product or service because they were unsure whether an online image or video was genuine.

Multiple responses permitted.

{{anchor:Q15 Sharing false content}}

Q15 Sharing content later found to be false or misleading

In the past 12 months, have you shared or reposted an image or video on social media that you later learned was fake or misleading? If so, what did you do?

Base: all respondents; n = 6,000.

Summary: 29% reported sharing or reposting content they later learned was fake or misleading. Of all respondents, 17% said they removed or corrected it, and 13% said they did not act because they considered the original poster more responsible.

{{anchor:Q16 Not correcting content}}

Q16 Reasons for not removing or correcting shared content

You said you were or would be unlikely to remove or correct something you shared if you later discovered it was false or misleading. Can you please tell us why?

Base: All unlikely to remove or correct something shared; n = 1,782; weighted base = 1,787.

Summary: Among those who were or would be unlikely to correct shared content, 22% would assume others had already seen that it was false; 20% cited the original creator's responsibility; and 20% would not know how to correct it.

Multiple responses permitted.

{{anchor:Q17 Content Credentials}}

Q17 Content Credentials comparison

Based on the following content, how likely would you be to do each of the following?

Without Content Credentials: n = 2,727; weighted base = 2,730. With Content Credentials: n = 2,752; weighted base = 2,759. Combined: n = 5,479; weighted base = 5,489.

Summary: The likely share for trusting the image or video as an accurate product representation was 34% with Content Credentials and 31% without. For trusting the brand, the figures were 32% and 29%; for considering a purchase, 23% and 21%.

Likely combines Somewhat likely and Very likely. Remaining response categories: Neither likely nor unlikely; Somewhat unlikely; Very unlikely.

{{anchor:Q18 AI-generated labels}}

Q18 Trust in content labeled as AI generated

If an image or video was clearly labeled as AI-generated, how would that affect your trust in it, even if there was no evidence that the content was false or misleading?

Base: all respondents; n = 6,000.

Summary: 69% said they would trust an image or video less if it was clearly labeled AI-generated, even with no evidence that it was false or misleading.

{{anchor:Q19 AI labeling preferences}}

Q19 Preferences for AI content labeling

Which of the following best describes how you think AI-generated images and videos should be labeled online?

Base: all respondents; n = 6,000.

Summary: 67% selected always clearly labeling all AI-generated content; 15% selected labeling content that could realistically be mistaken for genuine content.

Age note: 85% of respondents aged 65 and over selected always clearly labeling all AI-generated content. Weighted base: 1,306.

{{anchor:Q20 Responsibility}}

Q20 Responsibility for helping people identify genuine content

Who do you think should have the greatest responsibility for helping people know whether online content is genuine?

Base: all respondents; n = 6,000.

Summary: 45% selected the brand or organization sharing the content, 43% selected its creator, and 41% selected technology that verifies its origin and whether it has been altered.

Multiple responses permitted.

{{anchor:Appendix A}}

Appendix A Comparison with 2025

The brand-choice question was included in both studies. The comparison covers the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. The 2025 base is 5,019 respondents; the 2026 weighted base for those markets is 5,000. Germany is excluded.

2025 question

If two competing brands sent you a similar offer, which brand would you be more willing to choose based on how they appear in your inbox (before opening the email)?

2026 question

If two competing brands sent you a similar offer, which brand would you be more willing to choose based on how the emails appeared in your inbox (before opening the email)?

Summary: The share selecting the brand displaying its official logo was approximately 49% in 2025 and 54% in 2026 across the four markets.

Percentages above are calculated from response counts and shown to one decimal place. The 2026 counts are weighted and rounded. The studies used separate samples. No cross-year statistical significance test is reported.