Compared to other types of data, financial data inherently demands higher confidentiality. With the internationalization of financial markets and the digitization of financial data, cross-border flows of financial data have become commonplace. However, this process has increasingly highlighted issues concerning data utilization and privacy security, as traditional privacy regulations struggle to address cross-border requirements. At the legal level in China, the Data Security Law has preliminarily established a foundational framework for cross-border data transfers, while the Personal Information Protection Law incorporates GDPR-inspired principles to regulate the cross-border flow of personal information. However, at the regulatory level, overlapping rules from the People’s Bank of China (PBC), the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC), and other authorities coexist, leading to inconsistencies in regulatory approaches, ambiguous definitions, conflicting rules, and a disconnect between data classification standards and cross-border regulations. The core issues are as follows: First, an excessive emphasis on security has resulted in a prohibited in principle approach, stifling the release of data value and market vitality. Second, overlapping and conflicting regulations from multiple regulators—such as the PBC, CAC, and China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC)—increase compliance difficulties. Third, existing data classification systems fail to effectively link to cross-border conditions. Finally, there is a lack of differentiation in cross-border business needs, and foreign regulatory requirements are not addressed with tailored rules. The EU and the U.S. represent two distinct models of personal data protection. Comparing these two systems can provide clearer insights into China’s regulatory challenges: The EU, centered on the GDPR, has established a stringent and complex cross-border framework through adequacy decisions, standard contractual clauses (SCCs), and binding corporate rules (BCRs). While it lacks specific financial data rules, its overall requirements are exceptionally high. The U.S. adopts a sectoral legislation and industry self-regulation model. In finance, laws like the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act provide specific rules, while free trade agreements are leveraged to dismantle barriers, facilitate data flows, and attract data to the U.S. To address the difficulties in cross-border personal financial data flows, the following pathways can be explored: Firstly, shift regulatory philosophy from prohibited in principle to permitted in principle, recognizing the value of data as a factor of production and the global nature of cross-border flows while maintaining security baselines. Secondly, harmonize regulatory oversight, enhancing interdepartmental coordination to eliminate rule conflicts and gaps, ensuring coverage of emerging financial institutions. Thirdly, align data classification with cross-border rules, setting differentiated transfer conditions and assessment requirements based on data sensitivity or criticality. Fourthly, differentiate rules by flow purpose: refining necessity standards for business-driven flows, establishing efficient security assessment procedures, and negotiating mutual recognition mechanisms and standard contracts based on reciprocity. Ultimately, through these measures, contract law, organizational law, and regulatory frameworks can be coordinated to construct a governance system that safeguards security and sovereignty while promoting financial market internationalization, unlocking data value, and strengthening influence in global rule-making.