在平台经济与金融服务深度交织的背景下，监管层正加速厘清场景边界。2月13日，国家金融监督管理 总局联合市场监管总局、中国人民银行，对六家主流出行平台启动针对"场景嵌贷"模式的专项约谈。此 举标志着监管部门对非金融平台参与信贷营销的治理从原则宣示进入实操纠偏阶段，核心指向营销误 导、信息披露缺失与消费者保护机制缺位三大风险。作为高频生活服务入口，出行平台若沦为未披露的 信贷通道，不仅扭曲用户决策，更可能成为系统性金融风险的隐性传导节点。 根据金融监管总局官网发布的通报，国家金融监督管理总局联合国家市场监督管理总局、中国人民银 行，近日对携程旅行、高德地图、同程旅行、飞猪旅行、航旅纵横、去哪儿旅行等六家出行平台企业进 行了约谈。通报指出，上述企业在与金融机构合作开展借贷业务过程中存在不规范问题，主要集中在营 销行为、信息披露及消费者权益保障三个方面。监管部门明确要求：一是规范营销行为，不得使用误导 性宣传用语；二是清晰披露贷款机构名称及信贷产品信息，并向借款人明确提示理性借贷；三是畅通客 户投诉渠道，及时回应并妥善处理消费纠纷，切实保障消费者合法权益。 值得注意的是，被约谈企业在金融业务布局上存在结构性差异。以携 ...

其"同程易融.借钱"已与超过50家借款平台合作。这种"持牌自营"与"无牌导流"的并存，成为监管整治的 难点。对于已持牌平台，监管重点在于是否滥用信息优势，弱化风险提示；而对于无牌平台，则关注是 否以"信息展示"为名，实质进行营销，规避相关管理办法的限制。 三部门在约谈中强调，平台企业需"清晰披露贷款机构名称及信贷产品信息，并向借款人明确提示理性 借贷"。从风险传导角度看，出行场景具有高频、低决策成本、强即时性的特点，容易放大信贷诱导效 应。部分用户在未充分阅读协议的情况下完成"信用支付"，可能因还款提醒缺失或理解偏差产生逾期， 影响征信记录。 在平台经济与金融服务深度融合的背景下，监管部门正加快步伐，明确界定两者之间的边界。2月13 日，国家金融监督管理总局联合市场监管总局和中国人民银行，对六家主流出行服务平台进行了专项约 谈，聚焦于"场景嵌贷"模式。这标志着监管从理论指导转变为实际操作，主要针对营销误导、信息不透 明和消费者保护不足等问题。 出行平台若成为未公开的信贷渠道，可能会扭曲用户决策，甚至成为潜在的系统性金融风险传播点。根 据金融监管总局官网通报，携程旅行、高德地图、同程旅行、飞猪旅行、航旅纵横和去 ...

Core Viewpoint - The regulatory authorities are accelerating the clarification of boundaries in the context of the deep integration of platform economy and financial services, focusing on the risks of misleading marketing, lack of information disclosure, and inadequate consumer protection in the "scene embedded lending" model [1][12]. Group 1: Regulatory Actions - On February 13, the National Financial Supervision Administration, in conjunction with the State Administration for Market Regulation and the People's Bank of China, initiated special discussions with six major travel platforms regarding their lending practices [1]. - The discussions highlighted non-compliance issues in marketing behavior, information disclosure, and consumer rights protection among the involved companies [1]. - Regulatory requirements include the prohibition of misleading promotional language, clear disclosure of lending institutions and product information, and the establishment of effective customer complaint channels [1]. Group 2: Company-Specific Financial Practices - Ctrip has obtained multiple financial business qualifications since acquiring an insurance agency license in 2011, including commercial factoring, online micro-lending, and third-party payment services, and has expanded its financial licensing internationally [2]. - In contrast, Gaode Map does not hold any financial licenses and operates a pure referral model for lending services, with third-party financial institutions providing the actual loans [9]. - Tongcheng Travel has completed its licensing requirements by acquiring a payment company and consolidating its lending licenses, allowing it to collaborate with over 50 lending platforms [11]. Group 3: Regulatory Challenges - The coexistence of licensed self-operated platforms and unlicensed referral platforms presents a core challenge for current regulatory efforts [11]. - The regulatory focus for licensed platforms like Ctrip is on the potential misuse of information advantages, while for unlicensed platforms like Gaode, the emphasis is on avoiding substantial marketing under the guise of information display [11]. - The high-frequency and low-decision-cost nature of travel platforms can amplify the effects of credit inducement, leading to potential credit record impacts for users who do not fully understand the terms [11]. Group 4: Cross-Departmental Regulatory Mechanism - The joint action reflects a deepening of cross-departmental regulatory mechanisms, with each department focusing on different aspects of compliance and consumer protection [12]. - This initiative serves as a systemic brake on the financialization impulse of platform economies, emphasizing that technological convenience cannot replace compliance standards [12]. - The regulatory framework aims to ensure that platforms can connect to financial services while maintaining clear disclosures and protecting consumer decision-making rights [12].