Recently, the exposure of more details following the heavy penalties imposed on 7 e-commerce platforms for tolerating “ghost restaurants” has sparked heated discussions online. Netizens expressed that fines cannot solve the fundamental problem, and regulatory authorities should be held accountable for dereliction of duty. Otherwise, ghost stores may resurface.
On April 17, leading e-commerce platforms such as Pinduoduo, Meituan, JD.com, Ele.me (Taobao Flash Purchase), Douyin, Taobao, and Tmall were fined a total of 35.97 billion yuan for tolerating “ghost restaurants.” Chongqing Transshipment Bao and Anhui Dreamsearch, two major order transshipment platforms, were found to have violated regulations by subcontracting over 3.6 million orders for cakes, involving more than 67,000 “ghost restaurants.”
According to reports from multiple Chinese media outlets like the Beijing News on Monday (April 20), an upscale cream cake order priced at 252.4 yuan on a certain platform resulted in the actual cake-making store only receiving thirty percent of the amount after various deductions. This practice essentially forces businesses to cut corners to meet the pricing demands.
In reality, orders are not fulfilled directly by the businesses on the platform but are auctioned by “ghost restaurants” on transshipment platforms. The actual delivery rights are ultimately won by the store with the lowest quote (80 yuan).
Calculating the costs: the “ghost restaurant” earns 122 yuan, the platform takes a 50.4 yuan service fee, and after the cake-making store pays a 3.2 yuan service fee to the transshipment platform, a total of 76.8 yuan is collected, including shipping costs.
Some netizens bluntly commented, “With such low costs, what good quality can they deliver? Would you dare to eat such a thing?”
Ironically, Jingdong’s platform had a staggering 43,190 problematic cake decoration stores. Yet, in early 2025, when JD.com aggressively entered the food delivery arena, they declared, “Quality delivery,” “Only businesses with physical stores,” and “Resolutely fight against ghost restaurants.”
Some netizens straightforwardly stated, “Trust was misplaced in the end.”
While many netizens criticize food delivery platforms and ghost restaurants, they also believe that regulatory authorities should be held accountable for their negligence.
Some netizens stated, “The responsibility lies more with the regulatory bodies of Chongqing Transshipment Bao and Anhui Dreamsearch. Who approved them, who monitored them, how did they obtain fake documents, and how did they evade inspections – there are significant loopholes in every step. While platforms may shirk responsibility out of greed, the dereliction of supervision by regulatory authorities must be investigated for dereliction of duty.”
Others believe that this situation mirrors the phenomenon in the officialdom of the Chinese Communist Party, where bad coins drive out good coins. “When compliant businesses struggle to be profitable under the pressure of rent, labor, ingredients, packaging costs, ‘ghost restaurants’ without physical stores, kitchens, or staff thrive on platforms almost cost-free. This forms a vicious cycle: compliant businesses can’t survive, while unscrupulous ones grow rampantly.”
Blogger “World Express Reviews” further questioned, “Where did the 35 billion confiscated in fines go? The public sees the fines increasing, but they don’t see any improvement in their lives – food safety issues remain unresolved, low-priced essential takeouts disappear, and the public’s sense of gain is close to zero.”
“If regulation is just a ‘short burst of fine assaults,’ once fines are paid without addressing the root problems or considering people’s needs, today’s removal of ghost restaurants will lead to their resurgence elsewhere tomorrow.”
Some netizens cynically remarked, “Here comes the money grab again!”