Revolut data breach exposes customer information
Saturday 12th September, 2026
Revolut says fake government requests led to sensitive data from a limited number of customers being shared with an unauthorised third party.
This gives Wise a natural chance to talk about why clear, careful handling of customer data matters in international finance.
5 Sources:
Why have we flagged this?
Revolut’s customer data breach will heighten consumer concern about fintech security, giving Wise an opportunity to share its safeguards and expert advice on protecting financial information.
Get reactive idea inspiration
Thinking...
These are starting points for inspiration, not finished ideas.
Expert comment
Explain why trusted email domains no longer prove identity
A Wise security spokesperson explains how attackers exploit legitimate channels and what verification should happen before financial data is released.
Expert comment angle: Offer the comment to consumer finance, technology and cyber security reporters covering the breach.
Why: It gives journalists a clear lesson beyond Revolut’s individual incident: a familiar government domain is not enough evidence of authenticity.
Newsjack
Offer customers a live scam-request verification clinic
Run a one-day virtual clinic where members of the public can submit suspicious messages for Wise security specialists to explain and verify.
Newsjack angle: Launch the clinic this week and pitch the real-time public service to consumer affairs and technology desks.
Why: It shows a useful response to the growing problem of impersonation scams without asking people to understand technical security language.
Expert comment
Call for a new standard in customer data requests
Argue that financial firms should verify unusual data requests through a separate, independently sourced channel before disclosing sensitive customer information.
Expert comment angle: Ask Wise’s fraud or security expert to make the case to national consumer and business news desks.
Why: It turns a complex breach into a simple, practical debate about who should carry responsibility for proving a request is genuine.