Fraud in Market Research and How to Fight It: Lessons From Rare Patient Voice

The first time I came face-to-face with fraudulent survey data was more than 15 years ago. At the time, I was an account executive at a full-service market research firm. Our client, a biotech company preparing to launch a treatment for hemophilia, had hired us to survey doctors, nurses, patients, and caregivers.

As we began reviewing the results, something caught my eye: our so-called “hemophilia nurses” seemed to think Gojo hand soap was a hemophilia treatment. That didn’t make sense—real hemophilia nurses would be familiar with factor replacement therapies like Advate. The respondents weren’t nurses at all.

We had to call the client and admit the data wasn’t valid. Thankfully, the error was caught before it influenced decisions about a billion-dollar product launch. But I’ve often wondered—what if we hadn’t noticed? And what about our reputation as a research partner?

When Fraud Surfaces After the Fact

A few years later, after I’d founded Rare Patient Voice, I heard a similar story from a colleague. His firm had completed a study with multiple sclerosis patients, only for the client to flag that the results didn’t make sense. Once again, the data wasn’t authentic. The firm came to Rare Patient Voice to redo the study with real MS patients.

That experience reinforced a lesson: it’s bad enough when you discover fraudulent data in your study. It’s worse when your client discovers it for you. And the worst outcome of all? Never realizing the data was fraudulent in the first place, and allowing bad insights to drive big decisions.

How Widespread Is Fraud?

Unfortunately, fraud in market research isn’t rare. Kantar has reported that researchers discard up to 38% of online data due to quality concerns and fraud. Other estimates put fraud rates between 15–30%. At one SampleCon event, a speaker cited a study where 90% of responses were fraudulent.

To be fair, there are both data quality issues and fraud, and some of the numbers quoted may include both. The exact numbers may vary, but one thing is clear: fraud is significant, and it’s growing.

Steps Taken at RPV to Combat Fraud

At Rare Patient Voice, we’ve conducted more than 10,000 projects since 2013, building a panel of patients and family caregivers across 1,500 diseases in the U.S. and Europe. We’ve learned a lot about preventing fraud before it enters a study. Here are a few practices that may help others in our industry:

1. Start With the Source

When evaluating sample, the first question should be: Where did these respondents come from? Would you rather drink clean spring water or polluted water that’s been treated? The same goes for respondent data—it’s safer to start with quality than to clean it up later.

2. Recruit in Person

I began by meeting patients face-to-face at walks, conferences, and educational symposia. People who attend these events aren’t there to commit fraud—they’re there to learn, connect, and support one another. Few people would take the time to register for and attend an in person event in order to commit market research fraud. Meeting in person builds trust both ways: patients know we’re real, and we know they are too. In addition, our clients know that we are close to our community.

3. Build Referral Networks

From that first MS walk in Albuquerque, patients themselves have helped us grow. Today, more than 6,000 referral partners—including advocacy groups, support groups, foundations, and individuals—help connect us with real patients interested in having their opinions and insights heard. Because referrals are trackable, we can trace and investigate any concerns that arise.

4. Layer Technology With Human Oversight

We use tools like Research Defender, VerifyYou, and others to flag suspicious sign-ups. But as the Titanic taught us, no system is unsinkable. That’s why our team manually reviews each entry, looks for suspicious patterns, and follows up when something doesn’t feel right. Sometimes, it’s as obvious as email addresses with fruit names. Other times, it takes a sharp human eye.

5. Pick Up the Phone

When in doubt, we call. A short conversation quickly reveals whether someone is genuine. Yes, this takes time. But quality always comes with a cost—and it’s far less costly than letting fraud through.

6. Recontact and Verify

Real respondents can be recontacted. Every Rare Patient Voice member has a unique ID code, making follow-ups possible. We also confirm diagnoses when clients need it, through medical portals, prescription bottles, or with the help of partners like Clinakos.

7. Pay Responsibly

We compensate U.S. participants with paper checks. It’s harder for fraudsters to collect multiple checks than it is to game a system that pays in gift cards or points. Patients also tell us they need cash for real expenses like rent or prescriptions—checks meet both their needs and ours.

8. Value Qualitative Work

Fraud is much harder in face-to-face or video interviews. We recruit for more qualitative than quantitative studies, which further reduces risk. Even when clients ultimately need quant, preliminary qualitative can help confirm the authenticity of respondents.

Ask the Right Questions

Fraud may never be eliminated, but it can be fought. As researchers and clients, we need to ask the right questions of sample providers:

• What’s the source of your respondents?
• Do you do qualitative as well as quantitative research?
• How do you compensate respondents?
• Can you recontact them?
• How do you vet new participants?

Good providers are in it for the long term. They won’t risk client trust for a quick quota fill.

An Industry Effort

Fighting fraud isn’t something any one company can do alone. Organizations like the Insights Association, ESOMAR, Intellus Worldwide, QRCA, and SampleCon have come together under the Global Data Quality Initiative. Their mission is to strengthen trust in research by setting higher standards for data quality.

I encourage every organization to take the GDQ pledge and join this effort.

Closing Thoughts

Fraud in research is real, but it doesn’t have to overwhelm us. With vigilance, thoughtful sourcing, and transparency, we can preserve the integrity of our insights. Let’s all do our part—because bad data doesn’t just hurt a single study. It hurts decision-making, reputations, and ultimately, the patients and consumers we aim to serve.