Ad fraud doesn’t respect borders. But it does concentrate.

Some countries see far higher levels of non-human and low-intent activity flowing through paid media than others, creating uneven risk for advertisers expanding internationally.

Our 2026 Global Invalid Traffic report analysed 2.7 billion clicks across ten major advertising markets, using unprotected, monitor-only campaigns to show what really gets through platform defences today.

We’ll be discussing the Invalid Traffic (IVT) by Country section of the report here - you can get your copy of the full report here for a more in-depth analysis of IVT by industry, as well as a detailed look at IVT by ad platform, IVT by Google campaign type, IVT by Industry, and much more. 

Alternatively, watch our video rundown of the key findings from the report here: 

The global average invalid traffic rate sits at 8.51%. But that single number hides wide variation. In some markets, invalid traffic is effectively double the global norm. 

Below is how invalid traffic breaks down by country, and what it means for global paid media strategy.

The global benchmark

Across all countries analysed, the average IVT rate was 8.51%. 

And with global digital ad spend exceeding $740B in 2025, that equates to $63B in wasted spend tied to clicks that were never going to convert.

This isn’t a rounding error. It’s a structural tax on digital advertising, and it grows as budgets scale.

So, let’s see where that tax is the highest.

China and Brazil are clear hotspots

China recorded the highest invalid traffic rate in the dataset at 16.37%. Brazil followed closely at 14.70%. Both are roughly double the rates seen in the US and UK.

China’s position is particularly striking because of its scale. With digital ad spend exceeding $143B in 2024, a 16.37% IVT rate translates into an estimated $23.4B lost to invalid traffic in a single year.

Brazil’s total ad spend is much smaller, but the exposure is still material. Based on 2024 spend of $6.7B, the estimated wasted spend from IVT sits at around $1B.

These markets combine rapid digital growth with large-scale infrastructure that enables organised fraud operations. One of the largest ad fraud schemes uncovered in recent years, the “Camu” operation identified by HUMAN Security, was operating out of Brazil. At its peak, it processed 2.5 billion bid requests per day across more than 130 domains built purely to facilitate deception.

For advertisers expanding into these regions, assumptions formed in US or European markets don’t always hold. Traffic quality risk is structurally higher, not just operationally noisier.

The US and UK sit near the average, but scale changes everything

The United States recorded an invalid traffic rate of 8.44%, almost exactly in line with the global average. The UK came in slightly lower at 7.97%.

On the surface, those figures look manageable. At scale, they’re anything but.

With US digital ad spend exceeding $300B in 2024, an 8.44% IVT rate means more than $25B was spent driving traffic with no real conversion potential. In the UK, where annual digital ad spend surpassed $36B, the equivalent wasted spend is estimated at $2.9B.

These are mature markets with strong platform presence and relatively robust enforcement. Even so, invalid traffic remains deeply embedded in the system, quietly inflating reach, engagement, and performance metrics.

Australia, Western Europe, and Canada cluster lower

Australia recorded a 7.87% IVT rate, closely aligned with the UK. France came in at 6.63%, Germany at 6.34%, and Canada at 6.29%.

These markets benefit from tighter regulatory environments, stronger advertiser scrutiny, and a higher proportion of high-quality inventory. That doesn’t mean invalid traffic is absent. It means the baseline risk is lower.

At scale, the numbers are still significant. Canada’s 6.29% IVT rate, applied to $16B in digital ad spend, equates to roughly $1.01B in wasted budget. Germany’s 6.34% rate corresponds to an estimated $919M lost.

Lower percentages still hurt when budgets are large.

Japan and India defy common assumptions

Japan recorded a 6.07% invalid traffic rate, while India had the lowest rate in the dataset at 5.50%.

India’s position often surprises marketers. Rapid digital growth is usually assumed to correlate with higher fraud risk. Our data suggests otherwise.

India has tightened digital advertising, data governance, and cyber-fraud enforcement significantly in recent years. Bodies such as CERT-In and the IT Ministry actively monitor bot activity, driven in part by the country’s large fintech and eCommerce sectors.

There’s also a structural factor. India is a mobile-first, app-centric market. App environments are generally easier to validate than open web inventory. Markets with heavier desktop and open-display exposure tend to see higher IVT rates as a result.

What drives country-level differences

Geographic variation in invalid traffic is shaped by a mix of infrastructure, enforcement, economic incentives, and inventory quality.

Markets that host large-scale fraud operations often also see higher local IVT rates, even when the traffic ultimately targets advertisers elsewhere. Programmatic supply chains mean invalid traffic flows across borders easily, but its origins are rarely random.

Regulation matters. So does platform maturity. So does the balance between app and web inventory.

For global advertisers, this means country expansion strategies should factor in traffic quality risk, not just CPMs and reach forecasts.

The practical takeaway

Invalid traffic isn’t evenly distributed across markets. Some countries carry significantly higher baseline risk, and that risk compounds fast as spend increases.

China and Brazil offer massive growth potential, but they demand tighter controls and deeper scrutiny. The US and UK may feel familiar, but the absolute waste at scale is enormous. Markets like India challenge outdated assumptions about where fraud risk actually sits.

Paid media teams planning international growth need more than platform averages. They need country-level visibility into what’s real, what’s automated, and what’s quietly draining budget.

Because when 5% versus 15% invalid traffic is the difference, the market you choose can matter as much as the campaign you run.

Download your copy of the 2026 Global Invalid Traffic Report here to learn where your ad budget is most at risk - and what you can do right now to protect your ad spend efficiency.