The Tutela Digitalis Scam-Text Protection Index

17 countries scored on one factual axis: when a scammer sends a text using a real company's NAME as the sender, does the country's regime BLOCK that message, FLAG it, or do nothing? • blocked: 4 • flagged: 2 • voluntary: 2 • notused: 3 • none: 6 • blocked — a regulator REQUIRES sender-ID registration and unregistered branded senders are blocked before delivery • flagged — registration is required; unregistered branded senders are delivered but relabelled as suspect to the recipient • voluntary — a registry exists but no rule requires it; the recipient sees no signal • notused — branded (alphanumeric) sender IDs are not shown to consumers in that market at all, so the mechanism does not apply. This is NOT a failing grade; it is a different network architecture • none — no regulator-mandated scheme with a consumer-facing label or block was found "none" is a SEARCH RESULT, not a proven absence. A negative cannot be sourced to a regulator: no authority publishes a statement that it has not created a scheme. Treat these rows as "no scheme identified at the review date", never as "no scheme exists". This distinction is deliberate and should survive any reuse of the data. A sender-ID registry displaces this specific trick; it does not end SMS fraud. Ireland's regime is mandatory and fraud there has moved to plain numbers, and registrants cannot identify which of ~95 aggregator routes carries their traffic. Where an effectiveness figure exists it belongs to the regulator that published it and is attributed as such in the record, never asserted as our own finding. country, flag, region, tier, regime (the scheme's name), effect (what a recipient actually experiences), since (when it took effect), source / sourceUrl, note. Compiled and published by Tutela Digitalis, an independent fraud-education project with no vendor, platform or advertiser funding. Live version: https://www.tuteladigitalis.com/scam-text-protection-index Every count in this README is DERIVED from the records in the accompanying files, not entered by hand. If a figure here disagrees with the data, the data is correct. This is a point-in-time record. Regimes, policies and corporate guidance change; the review date is stated above and each record carries its own source URL so any claim can be checked at source rather than taken on trust. Licence: CC BY 4.0. Free to reuse with attribution. Corrections are welcomed and acted on — contact [e-mail].