A growing number of Americans are using AI chatbots for financial guidance, and a significant portion report losing money as a result. According to a 2025 survey by Pearl.com, a professional services platform, 19% of U.S. adults who followed financial advice from an AI chatbot said they lost more than $100. Among Gen Z investors specifically, that figure rose to 27%. The findings come as usage rates continue climbing: A Pew Research Center survey found that 34% of U.S. adults and 58% of those under 30 have used ChatGPT, roughly double the share from two years earlier.
The trend has raised concerns among consumer advocates and some policymakers who argue that AI companies offering financial advice may need greater oversight. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has begun examining automated financial tools, though specific regulations remain in development. Meanwhile, a finance professor writing in The Conversation argued that users often cannot detect when AI guidance is wrong, because financial advice is what economists call a credence good — one where consumers frequently cannot evaluate the quality of the recommendation until years later, if ever.
What the Left Is Saying
Progressive advocates and consumer protection groups argue that AI companies providing financial advice should face clearer accountability. They point to the survey data showing real monetary harms, particularly among younger investors who are more likely to use these tools. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Rohit Chopra has said his agency is watching automated financial advice products closely, noting that existing consumer protection laws apply regardless of whether a human or an algorithm provides guidance.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has called for transparency requirements on AI financial tools, arguing that companies should be required to disclose when their systems are providing personalized advice versus general information. Groups like the National Consumer Law Center have advocated for stronger disclosures and potential liability protections for consumers harmed by flawed AI recommendations, similar to protections that exist for other financial products.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservatives and free-market advocates argue that over-regulation of AI financial tools could stifle innovation and limit access to useful services. They note that many Americans lack affordable access to human financial advisors and that AI chatbots provide a low-cost alternative for basic financial education. The tools can help users learn concepts like compound interest, the difference between Roth and traditional IRAs, and other foundational topics.
Senator Thom Tillis, R-N.C., has cautioned against preemptive regulations that could disadvantage American AI companies globally. Industry groups including the Chamber of Commerce have argued that existing fraud and deception laws are sufficient to address bad actors without creating new regulatory frameworks specifically targeting AI. Some conservatives also emphasize personal responsibility, noting that users should exercise judgment when applying any automated advice to their individual circumstances.
What the Numbers Show
The Pew Research Center survey found 34% of U.S. adults and 58% of those under 30 have used ChatGPT as of 2025, roughly double the rates from two years earlier. The Pearl.com survey of 2,000 U.S. adults found 19% lost more than $100 following AI financial advice, rising to 27% among Gen Z investors. Research on robo-advising platforms has shown users tend to skew young, male, and smaller retail investors, with new account sign-ups increasing during periods of high market volatility — when wrong moves are most costly.
Finance researchers describe the limitation as a jagged frontier: AI tools perform reliably for common, routine topics but become unreliable for unusual cases. The unusual cases in personal finance — exercising stock options, divorce settlements, Social Security claiming strategies for couples — tend to be the expensive ones where mistakes carry the highest price tag.
The Bottom Line
The rapid adoption of AI chatbots for financial guidance has outpaced the development of guardrails to protect consumers from bad advice. While these tools offer free access to basic financial education and can help users prepare questions before consulting human advisors, researchers caution that large dollar decisions, tax consequences, irreversible actions, and situation-specific strategies represent areas where AI is least reliable and confident answers may be most misleading. What remains unclear is whether regulatory action, industry self-regulation, or consumer education will prove most effective in addressing the gap between AI capability and financial protection.