Fraud Blocker

United States · fraudblocker.com · 14 vendors

Resilience scores

Technology vendors

Services catalogue

1 service in catalogue across 1 category; runs on 14 sub-vendors.

Insights

Last updated 2026-08-07 · revision 7

14 direct vendors, 203 subvendors

Direct vendors by controlling owner country (sample)

Subvendors by controlling owner country (sample)

Migration Readiness: 8/10

Assessed by AI based on technology stack characteristics (cloud-native vs legacy, containerization, microservices), regulatory environment, data residency requirements, financial stability, and vendor lock-in risks. The score ranges from 0-10, where higher scores indicate better readiness for technology migration.

Fraud Blocker exhibits a high level of migration readiness. A primary strength is their existing use of Google Cloud Platform as a sub-processor, indicating that their core services are already cloud-hosted or cloud-native. This significantly reduces the complexity and effort typically associated with migrating from on-premise or legacy infrastructure. Their core product is also API-driven ('Data Solutions API', Google Ads API, Meta Ads API integrations), which facilitates easier integration and potential re-platforming in a new environment. The company's strong growth and market presence suggest a healthy financial position, providing the necessary resources to fund a significant migration effort. Challenges for migration primarily stem from regulatory compliance. The company must maintain GDPR and CCPA compliance, including managing data residency requirements (primarily US processing with SCCs for EU/UK data transfers) during any migration. This necessitates careful planning to ensure data protection and transfer mechanisms remain robust. The absence of SOC2 Type II and ISO 27001 certifications could also complicate the process of demonstrating security controls and assurance in a new or migrated environment, potentially requiring additional audits or efforts. While their internal tech stack includes WordPress for their website, which might require specific migration considerations, their core fraud detection engine appears to be more modern and cloud-aligned. Vendor lock-in risk is not explicitly quantified ('Total Vendors: 0' is an anomaly), but the geographic diversity of vendor HQs suggests they are accustomed to managing relationships with various providers, which can be beneficial during a migration.

Compliance

7 in-scope frameworks identified; showing 3.

ISO 27001 (source) — Assessment Required

ISO 27001 is an internationally recognized information security management standard highly relevant to SaaS companies processing personal data at scale. Fraud Blocker processes sensitive technical data (IP addresses, device identifiers, email addresses, click behavior) for thousands of customers globally, including EU/EEA customers. No ISO 27001 certification has been found. The risk is Medium because: (1) ISO 27001 is not legally mandated in the US but is increasingly expected by enterprise and EU customers; (2) EU customers subject to GDPR may require their processors to demonstrate ISO 27001 or equivalent certification; (3) The absence of certification may limit enterprise sales opportunities. Risk is not High because Fraud Blocker appears to be a small company where ISO 27001 is aspirational rather than immediately required.

Evidence: https://fraudblocker.com/terms, https://fraudblocker.com/privacy

FTC Act — Assessment Required

The FTC has broad authority over US companies' data privacy and security practices under Section 5 of the FTC Act (prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices). Fraud Blocker, as a US-based SaaS company collecting and processing personal data, is subject to FTC jurisdiction. The FTC has increasingly focused on data security, privacy policy accuracy, and data broker practices. Risk is Medium because: (1) Fraud Blocker collects and processes significant volumes of personal data (IP addresses, device data, email addresses) and operates as a data enrichment provider; (2) The FTC's 2023 Commercial Surveillance rulemaking and increased enforcement against data brokers and ad tech companies creates elevated risk for companies in Fraud Blocker's sector; (3) No FTC enforcement action against Fraud Blocker has been identified, but the company's data practices (collecting 50+ data points per visitor, email verification, IP analysis) warrant ongoing monitoring.

Evidence: https://fraudblocker.com/privacy, https://fraudblocker.com/, https://fraudblocker.com/terms

GDPR (source) — Partially Compliant

Fraud Blocker explicitly acknowledges GDPR applicability and has implemented several key compliance mechanisms: a published DPA incorporating EU Standard Contractual Clauses (Module 2: Controller to Processor), a UK GDPR Addendum, GDPR-referenced legal bases (Art. 6(1)(a) and Art. 6(1)(b)) in its Privacy Policy, data subject rights disclosures, and technical security measures (encryption at rest/in transit, RBAC, IDS). However, risk remains Medium because: (1) No appointed EU/EEA Representative under GDPR Art. 27 is publicly identified, which is required for non-EU controllers targeting EU residents; (2) No Data Protection Officer (DPO) is publicly identified; (3) The Privacy Policy contains an ambiguous statement ('transfer of your personal data in and to none') suggesting a possible drafting error regarding international transfer disclosures; (4) No evidence of a formal GDPR audit or third-party certification; (5) The company is a small US-based SaaS provider processing EU personal data (IP addresses, device data, location data, email addresses) at scale — enforcement risk from EU DPAs is real but moderated by the company's relatively small size. Fines under GDPR can reach €20M or 4% of global annual turnover.

Evidence: https://fraudblocker.com/privacy, https://fraudblocker.com/terms, https://fraudblocker.com/

Financials

Three-year financials

Financial Resilience Score: 6/10

Fraud Blocker is a privately held US LLC founded in 2019 with no publicly disclosed financials, no SEC filings, and no confirmed institutional funding rounds. As such, a precise financial resilience score is difficult to determine. However, qualitative indicators suggest moderate resilience: the company operates a recurring subscription SaaS model with predictable cash flows, appears to be capital-light and likely bootstrapped, and has demonstrated strong customer growth from approximately 1,250 to 4,500 client accounts (a ~3-4x increase). Product diversification into email verification, data enrichment, and AI reporting reduces single-product concentration risk. Offsetting these strengths are notable risks: high platform dependency on Google Ads and Meta APIs, competitive intensity from larger well-funded rivals (CHEQ, DoubleVerify, IAS, ClickCease, Lunio), Google's own improving invalid-click filtering that could compress the addressable market, and key-person risk from a thin publicly disclosed leadership bench (two co-founders and one advisor). The lack of transparency itself is a resilience concern for counterparty assessment. Overall, the company appears to be a growing, lean SaaS operator with directional momentum but limited visibility into its balance sheet strength.

Key strengths: Recurring SaaS subscription revenue model with predictable cash flows, Strong customer growth: ~1,250 to ~4,500 client accounts (3-4x), 20,000 domains protected and 60 million IPs analyzed monthly, Product breadth expansion (click-fraud, email verification, data enrichment, AI reporting), Google Partner status and Google-Certified Click Tracker, Multiple G2 badges (Leader, Best ROI, Easiest Setup, Momentum Leader), GDPR and CCPA compliance, Notable customer logos including Playboy, Steelcase, Tumi, Jellyfish, Capital-light structure with likely low burn rate

Risk factors: No public financial disclosure (private LLC, no SEC filings), High platform dependency on Google Ads and Meta Ads APIs, Competitive intensity from larger players (CHEQ, DoubleVerify, IAS, ClickCease, Lunio), Google's own IVT filtering reduces perceived need for third-party solutions, SMB customer concentration exposes company to ad-spend cycles and churn, Regulatory and privacy risk (GDPR, CCPA, browser privacy trends), Key-person risk with only two co-founders and one named advisor publicly disclosed, No confirmed institutional funding or venture backing disclosed, Small company scale relative to enterprise competitors

Revenue by geography

Revenue by product/service

Workforce by country

Signed-in users can see whether their own company is exposed to this vendor's disruption, plus the full sub-vendor list and country breakdowns, every in-scope compliance framework plus gaps and next steps, and alerts when any of it changes.

View the full interactive report