This study analyses the results of 322 lawsuits regarding retail mu-tual funds and structured notes in Taiwan between 2000 and 2012 and their relationship with other factors such as investors’ personal charac-teristics, main arguments and causes of action. This study has the fol-lowing major findings: (1) the winning rate for investors was quite low, meaning that banks face low legal risk from inappropriately selling claims; (2) investors were not better off for having filed a complaint with the Banker’s Association; (3) we have not proved that the courts showed preference for investors with certain personal traits due to the limited information available; (4) a plaintiff’s winning rate does not vary much from one argument to another, except for arguing formation of contract, but our research shows that more might have to be done to clarify the post-contractual responsibilities of banks; (5) there is also no proof to indicate that certain causes of action or litigation strategies would help investors in winning a judgment and we have not proved that filing more causes of action would help to increase a plaintiff’s chance of winning. Our findings urge regulators and legislators to recon-sider regulatory policies for investor protection as well as dispute resolu-tion for financial consumers in the future to offer more complete pro-tection of financial consumers.