Americans Trust AI to Flag Fraud More Than to Manage Their Money

Americans are more comfortable letting artificial intelligence protect their money than make decisions with it. That distinction stands out in the 2026 FIS Consumer Pulse Survey: 57% of respondents said they would accept an AI assistant flagging or freezing a suspicious charge without asking first, while only 37% said they were ready for AI-managed finances overall.

Conducted online by research firm Kantar for financial technology company FIS (NYSE: FIS), the survey included 2,000 U.S. adults polled between September 16 and 30, 2026. Its findings offer a useful read on where consumer acceptance sits today: automated help earns more support when the task is specific and protective, and less when it involves broader authority over personal finances.

Support falls as AI takes on more discretion

The survey’s task-by-task results show a clear gradient. Alongside the 57% who were comfortable with an AI flagging or freezing a suspicious charge, 55% were comfortable with it paying a recurring bill they had already approved. Comfort was lower for sending money to another person or business, at 47%; opening a savings account, at 43%; and applying for a loan or credit card, at 40%.

That ordering suggests that permission and reversibility matter. A recurring payment has already been authorized, while a fraud alert responds to a defined risk. Sending money or applying for credit asks the assistant to act in ways that may carry greater consequences or reflect more personal judgment. The figures don’t establish why each respondent drew the line where they did, but they show that acceptance isn’t a blanket endorsement of AI handling financial tasks.

For advisors discussing banking tools or platforms that can take actions for users, the distinction is practical. Clients may welcome help that watches for unusual activity or handles a bill they have already approved, yet still want to review decisions that move money or create a new financial commitment. A previous survey of client views on advisor AI use found a related emphasis on disclosure and continued access to a person.

Control and a way to fix mistakes matter

Respondents’ conditions for trusting AI point to accountability as a central concern. When asked to choose their top three conditions, 58% selected a refund guarantee for mistakes, while 56% wanted access to a human who could review and override decisions. Among respondents who weren’t ready to hand money management to AI, 70% cited a desire to remain in control of their own finances.

These answers suggest that consumers judge automated finance by more than convenience. They also want to know what happens when a system gets something wrong and whether a person can step in. A refund guarantee addresses the financial consequence of an error; a human review option addresses the process that led to it. The survey doesn’t specify what form those safeguards should take, but its results make clear that trust depends on the ability to correct a decision as well as the technology’s capacity to make one.

FIS Co-President of Banking Solutions Jim Johnson said, “The path to AI that moves money starts with AI that protects it.” He added that consumers want “security, control and confidence that someone is accountable when something goes wrong.” That framing fits the survey’s contrast between relatively high comfort with fraud alerts and lower readiness for AI-managed finances.

Readiness varies sharply by age

Willingness to hand over day-to-day money management differs markedly across age groups. Among respondents aged 30 to 45, 61% said they were prepared to do so. The share was 58% among those aged 18 to 29, then fell to 33% among people aged 46 to 61. It stood at 11% for those aged 62 to 69 and 3% among adults 70 and older.

Across all respondents, 49% said they weren’t ready for AI-managed finances, compared with 37% who were. The age pattern helps explain why a single message about AI may not fit every client conversation. The generational divide in attitudes toward technology-driven advice has also appeared in broader discussions of investor preferences. Age alone, however, doesn’t explain an individual’s comfort level; the survey reports group differences, not the reasons behind each person’s response.

Scam exposure complicates confidence

Fraud is part of the backdrop to these attitudes. In the survey, 35% of adults said they had been targeted by an AI impersonation scam or knew someone who had. Twenty-two percent said they had been targeted personally; among that group, 58% said the approach came through a fake-voice phone call.

Reported exposure was higher among younger respondents: 55% of Gen Z participants and 48% of millennials said they had been targeted or knew someone who had. Yet those same groups reported more confidence in their bank’s ability to stop a deepfake scam: 57% among Gen Z and 65% among millennials, compared with 46% of respondents overall. Separately, 47% of all respondents said they were confident their bank would return money lost to a deepfake scam.

Exposure and confidence can coexist, but the figures don’t show that one causes the other. They do underscore that consumers are assessing AI in two roles at once: as a tool that might help protect an account and as technology that can be used to imitate people. InvestmentNews has reported on continued client skepticism as financial firms adopt AI, with scam concerns among the factors shaping that wariness.

For financial firms and advisors, the survey points to a measured way to discuss automation: start with clearly defined tasks, explain how a client can review or reverse an action, and make accountability understandable. The figures suggest that acceptance may widen as AI earns confidence through visible safeguards; for now, most respondents remain more comfortable with assistance than with handing over day-to-day control.