2026 Financial Consumer Rights Protection Awareness Survey

In recent years, our country’s financial services have continued to accelerate in their push toward broad-based access and digitization. Financial services such as bank wealth management, insurance, funds, credit, and digital payments have become deeply integrated into residents’ everyday lives. With the continual expansion of financial consumer scenarios, risks such as misleading sales, information leakage, noncompliant debt collection, and new forms of financial scams have become increasingly prominent. Protecting the rights and interests of financial consumers has become an important part of maintaining stability in the financial market and safeguarding people’s well-being.

According to data from the National Financial Regulatory Administration, in 2025, the nationwide 12378 (Financial Consumer Complaint Hotline) received more than 12 million complaints in terms of handled requests. Meanwhile, the number of mediation cases for financial consumption disputes has remained at a high level. At the same time, results from the People’s Bank of China’s 2025 Financial Literacy Survey show that there is still room to improve Chinese residents’ awareness of financial rights and their ability to prevent risks.

To comprehensively understand Chinese residents’ awareness of rights protection in financial consumption, their level of risk identification, their habits of pursuing rights, and their real-life dilemmas, the Digital 100 Data Research Institute, together with the magazine Financial Expo · Wealth, conducted a special questionnaire survey from February to March 2026 across 31 provinces (autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the central government). A total of 3,200 valid samples were ultimately collected.

This survey covers groups of different ages, education levels, incomes, and occupations. It conducts a systematic analysis around core dimensions such as the use of financial services, awareness of rights and interests, reading of contracts, experiences of infringement, risk vigilance, channels for rights protection, acquisition of knowledge, assessments of institutions, self-assessment of ability, and recognition of responsibility. By combining official regulatory data with industry practices, the survey forms an all-around panoramic survey report, providing data support and practical references for further optimizing the environment for financial consumption, improving the public’s financial literacy, and enhancing the rights protection mechanisms.

Panoramic View of Financial Service Use:

Universal coverage of basic services, with clear differentiation across diverse scenarios

Today, financial services have reached universal coverage, and different groups show clear differences in their usage preferences by age and income.

According to the survey data, the usage rate of “basic services such as bank deposits and transfers” reaches 92.3%, making it the most widely covered financial service. The usage rate of “payment and credit tools such as credit cards, Huabei, and Bai tiao” is 68.7%, which is especially prevalent among younger people and salaried workers. After its net value-based transformation, “bank wealth management products” has become the mainstream choice for residents’ asset allocation, with a usage rate of 51.4%. The usage rate of “mid- to long-term credit products such as consumption loans and mortgage loans” is 42.8%, mainly concentrated among groups with home-buying needs and household cash-flow turnover demands. The usage rate of “securities investment products such as stocks and funds” is 38.5%, and younger people show higher enthusiasm for participation. The usage rate of “insurance products” is 35.2%. Awareness of protection-oriented products is gradually increasing, but there are still risks of misleading sales for wealth-management-oriented products (see Figure 1).

From the perspective of age differences, people aged 20 to 30 tend to prefer credit cards, Huabei, and securities investments; people aged 30 to 40 have higher usage proportions for mortgage loans, consumption loans, and bank wealth management; people aged 40 to 50 mainly rely on relatively stable wealth management products and insurance products; and people over 50 are highly dependent on basic banking services, with lower risk appetite.

From the perspective of income segmentation, the group with a monthly income above 10,000 yuan shows significantly higher usage rates for bank wealth management, securities investments, and insurance products than other groups, and their asset allocation displays a more diversified profile. For the group with a monthly income below 3,000 yuan, they still mainly use basic banking services and small-amount credit, with relatively more single-choice financial service selection and weaker risk-bearing capacity.

Overall, the comprehensive penetration of financial services not only meets residents’ wealth management and daily needs, but also brings more complex challenges in protecting rights and interests.

Rights and Interests Awareness:

Insufficient knowledge dissemination, with weak risk-prevention “gateways”

The eight basic rights of financial consumers are the foundation for safeguarding their lawful rights and interests.

The survey results show that, among these eight basic rights—such as the right to property safety, the right to be informed, and the right to independent choice—only 12.7% of respondents said they understand most of the contents very well and can clearly express them. 41.3% of respondents said they roughly understand several core rights. 35.8% of respondents said they have heard of them but do not know the specific contents. And 10.2% of respondents said they do not understand them at all (see Figure 2).

Overall, more than half of consumers lack a complete understanding of the rights and interests they enjoy, and there is still a clear shortfall in the dissemination of rights and interests knowledge. Among them, awareness of the right to be informed and the right to property safety is relatively higher, while awareness of the right to seek compensation according to law, the right to education, and the right to be respected is generally lower.

In addition, in specific practical scenarios, financial consumers’ risk-prevention awareness is also relatively weak—based on how they read contract terms.

The survey data show that 18.5% of respondents carefully read contracts item by item and focus on key contents such as fees, risks, and liability for breach of contract. 46.2% of respondents only check intuitive information such as amounts, interest rates, and terms, ignoring hidden clauses and risk warnings. 27.3% of respondents only skim, relying mainly on oral explanations from salespeople. And 8% of respondents hardly read contracts at all, choosing to trust the institution or sign directly (see Figure 3).

Further analysis shows that there are significant differentiated characteristics across age and income groups in the scenarios above. Younger, higher-income, and higher-education groups read contracts more thoroughly. People aged over 50 and lower-income/lower-education groups are more likely to trust verbal promises easily and ignore contract details—this also becomes an important reason why some misleading sales behaviors can take advantage of the situation.

Experiences of Infringement and Risk Vigilance:

Sales irregularities still exist; information security and fraud risks deserve attention

Financial consumption infringement still occurs from time to time, and improper sales, information security, and online fraud are the main risk points.

When asked whether they have encountered financial institution staff engaging in misleading sales, 7.8% of respondents said they often come across it, 38.5% said they sometimes come across it, 35.2% said they have heard that people around them have encountered such situations, and only 18.5% said they have never encountered it. Over 80% of consumers have directly or indirectly encountered misleading sales behaviors, and the sales stage remains a high-incidence area for financial consumption infringement.

In addition, among the main forms of improper financial sales behavior, the one with the highest proportion is “exaggerating returns and concealing risks,” reaching 68.3%. The proportion of “promoting insurance, wealth management, and other products as if they were deposits” is 52.7%; older groups are the primary victims. The proportion of “opening or binding services without consent” is 38.5%, which mostly occurs in credit card processing and APP authorization scenarios. “Forced bundled sales” and “covertly charging related fees” also have certain proportions—27.8% and 24.1%, respectively—becoming one of the manifestations of infringement on financial consumers’ right to independent choice and the right to fair dealing (see Figure 4).

Not only that, personal financial information security also faces severe challenges. 16.8% of respondents said they often encounter information leakage, such as frequently receiving harassing and fraudulent calls or text messages. 47.3% said they sometimes receive promotional and fraudulent calls or text messages. Only 29.5% said they have never encountered such issues. 6.4% said they cannot determine whether their personal information has been leaked. Meanwhile, more than 60% of respondents have received calls or text messages from financial scams impersonating banks or regulatory departments, and 4.6% of respondents cannot accurately distinguish the genuine from the fake. Anti-fraud efforts and fraud prevention remain arduous tasks.

It is worth noting that when facing recommendations of high-yield financial products, consumers’ risk awareness has improved. 42.8% of respondents would first confirm whether a product is compliant and whether it is supervised. 27.5% of respondents would be tempted and learn more. 22.3% would ignore it directly, and 7.4% would try making a small investment. For new scams repeatedly warned about by regulatory departments—such as “rights-agency for claims” and “credit-report whitening”—38.7% of respondents said they have fully understood the risks and would never believe them. 35.4% of respondents hold a skeptical attitude and would not try it easily. 21.8% said they are not quite sure but feel it is unreliable. Still, 4.1% of respondents said that when they encounter difficulties, they might consult others—there is potential risk of being deceived.

Channels for Rights Protection and Real-World Dilemmas:

Low awareness rate; high cost, hard evidence, and insufficient confidence

The level of promotion and convenience of channels for rights protection directly determines the efficiency of resolving financial consumption disputes.

The survey data show that, for the core rights-protection channel 12378, 8.3% of respondents said they “know it very well and have used it.” 31.5% said they “know about it but have never used it.” 42.7% said they “have heard of it, but don’t know how to use it.” 17.5% of respondents said they “don’t know about it at all” (see Figure 5).

Overall, nearly 60% of consumers are not familiar with how to use core rights-protection channels, and the promotion and reach of such channels still need to be strengthened.

Further analysis shows that when a financial consumption dispute occurs, 45.2% of respondents believe the most effective approach is “to directly negotiate with the financial institution’s headquarters or customer service department.” 21.7% of respondents chose “to complain to the National Financial Regulatory Administration (12378 hotline) or local regulatory bureaus.” 13.8% of respondents chose “to complain to the consumer association (12315) or seek mediation.” The proportions for “resorting to legal channels (litigation or arbitration)” and “exposing it on public platforms such as social media” are relatively lower. At the same time, 4.8% of respondents “feel helpless and believe the cost of rights protection is too high,” and most of them choose to give up pursuing rights (see Figure 6).

In addition, the difficulties consumers face in protecting their own financial rights and interests are concentrated and prominent.

The survey data show that 67.4% of respondents believe that “professional information asymmetry makes it hard to understand complex contracts and product terms” is the biggest obstacle. 58.3% of respondents believe that “the channels for rights protection are unclear, and they don’t know who to complain to or how to protect their rights.” 51.7% of respondents believe that “it is difficult to provide evidence, making it hard to collect effective evidence such as the sales process and contract communications.” Barriers such as “time and economic costs are too high, and they can’t afford it” and “feeling that personal strength cannot withstand the institution, and lacking confidence” account for 48.5% and 37.2% respectively (see Figure 7).

Further analysis shows that when the rights-protection process is complex and especially time-consuming, only 22.8% of respondents said they would not give up; they would persist in safeguarding their lawful rights and interests regardless of the amount. 47.3% of respondents would decide depending on the amount involved and the energy invested. 18.5% of respondents said they might give up unless the amount is enormous. 11.4% of respondents said they would most likely give up because they are afraid of trouble.

Overall, the phenomena of “putting up with infringement involving small amounts” and “abandoning complicated rights protection halfway” are quite common, and the barriers to rights protection have become one of the important factors constraining consumers from safeguarding their own rights and interests.

Knowledge Acquisition and Self-Assessment of Ability:

Urgent need for education; still substantial room for improvement in institutions’ services

Financial knowledge acquisition channels and self-assessment of one’s own ability directly reflect the shortcomings in current financial consumer education and the core needs.

Regarding channels for acquiring financial knowledge and risk warnings, 58.7% of respondents obtain information through financial institutions’ official apps and branch publicity; 47.3% rely on finance-focused self-media and short-video platforms; and 35.8% say it comes from traditional media such as television and newspapers. By comparison, the proportion coming from regulators’ official websites, or from training at schools or workplaces is relatively low. In addition, 16.8% of respondents rarely take the initiative to acquire financial knowledge.

It can be seen that self-media has become the main front for the dissemination of financial knowledge, but the quality of information is uneven, and the outreach effect of popular science from authoritative channels needs to be improved.

For how respondents perceive current financial institutions’ performance in protecting consumer rights and interests, 6.3% said it is very good, 32.7% said it is relatively good, 45.8% said it is average with many problems, 8.5% said it is poor and that infringement frequently occurs, and 6.7% said they cannot judge well. At the same time, more than half of financial consumers are not satisfied with financial institutions’ work on protecting consumers’ rights and interests; the most prominent pain points are information not being transparent, sales being noncompliant, and complaint handling being inefficient.

In terms of directions where financial consumer education needs to be strengthened, 72.4% of respondents hope to focus on improving their ability to identify new types of financial scams and schemes involving fake loans; 68.5% hope to be able to read and understand financial product contracts and risk disclosure documents; 59.3% hope to learn the channels and procedures for pursuing rights. Knowledge about investing, wealth management, matching risks, and how to maintain personal credit reports is also highly concerned (see Figure 8).

In addition, regarding the aspects that consumers believe financial institutions should prioritize improving, they mainly focus on making information more transparent, eliminating misleading sales, optimizing complaint-handling mechanisms, and protecting customers’ information security. In simple terms, “making it easier to understand, more compliant, and more efficient” is the core expectation.

Further, from a self-evaluation perspective, respondents’ scores for their own ability to prevent financial risks and protect rights and interests are not high. The average score is 2.92, just above the passing line. Only 4.7% of respondents give themselves a perfect score (5 points). More than 70% of consumers believe their own ability is insufficient, and there is still significant room to improve financial literacy and rights-protection ability (see Figure 9).

Shared Responsibility and Future Risks:

Multi-party governance is the mainstream; information security risks and new scam risks attract the most attention

To enhance the whole society’s awareness of financial consumption safety, it requires efforts from multiple parties working together. This concept has already become a widely shared social consensus. Survey data also show that 78.5% of respondents believe that financial institutions should fulfill their main responsibilities and operate with integrity and compliance, which is the most critical responsibility party for improving safety awareness. 71.3% of respondents believe that regulatory departments should strengthen regulatory law enforcement and risk early warning, and severely crack down on infringement. 62.7% of respondents believe that consumers themselves should proactively learn financial knowledge and increase risk vigilance. At the same time, objective popular science by the media and incorporating financial knowledge into the national education system through education institutions have also received broad recognition.

Overall, the multi-party governance pattern—financial institutions being responsible, regulators stepping up enforcement, consumers taking initiative, and society coordinating together—remains the core direction for future work on protecting financial consumers’ rights.

Looking ahead, the specific rights and interests risks that consumers most need to be wary of show a clear focus. The survey data show that 74.2% of respondents think that the leakage and misuse of personal financial information is the risk that needs the most vigilance. 71.5% of respondents focus on risks of new forms of online financial fraud and “scheme loans.” In addition, risks related to revenue volatility and loss after wealth management products become net value-based, risks of excessive indebtedness and noncompliant debt collection, and risks of misunderstanding complex financial product terms and being misled in sales also receive widespread attention. Their respective proportions are 42.7%, 38.3%, and 35.8% (see Figure 10).

In other words, as digital finance develops rapidly, information security risks and new scam risks have become the core concerns for protecting the rights and interests of future financial consumers, and they also point to key directions for financial regulation, institutional compliance, and consumer education.

Conclusion:

Strengthen the line of defense for financial consumer protection to safeguard people’s financial asset safety

In 2026, China’s financial consumption market is steadily moving toward standardized, digitized, and inclusive development. Residents’ awareness of protecting their financial consumption rights and interests is improving overall and steadily, but it still faces real issues such as insufficient rights-and-interests awareness, frequent occurrence of infringement risks, inconvenient rights-protection channels, and relatively weak capability levels. Elderly groups, low-income groups, and low-education groups are the risk-sensitive groups, and they are also key targets for rights protection and financial education.

The results of this survey show that when financial institutions fulfill their main responsibilities, regulatory departments strengthen enforcement and popular science, consumers proactively enhance risk awareness, and all sectors of society participate in coordination, these are the “four pillars” for building a safe and stable financial consumption environment. In the future, as financial knowledge dissemination continues to deepen, financial institutions’ compliant operations continue to strengthen, rights-protection channels become more convenient and efficient, and regulatory law enforcement becomes stricter and more powerful, the system for protecting financial consumers’ rights and interests will be continuously improved. Consumers’ rights and interests—including the right to financial asset safety, the right to be informed, the right to independent choice, and the right to fair dealing—will be more firmly safeguarded. This will truly ensure that the fruits of financial development benefit every consumer, protect the people’s “money bags,” and lay a solid foundation rooted in people’s livelihood for high-quality financial development.

Author: Liu Tao, Lü Wenhai, Digital 100 Data Research Institute

Source: Financial Expo · Wealth, Issue 3 of 2026

Editor-in-charge: Liu Qiang

Like, share, recommend, and arrange it—okay?