With the economic downturn in mainland China and the consumer downgrade, people have started to carefully manage their finances. They have realized that for years they have been overcharged by telecommunications operators, so they have begun to fight for their rights and “take into account the balance”. Legal experts also encourage consumers not to ignore small injustices when it comes to consumer traps.
Recently, complaints from consumers against the three major telecommunications operators in China have surged. On February 26th this year, the Beijing financial platform “Jinrongjie” filed over 45,000 complaints about “Mobile deductions” on the Black Cat Complaint Platform (a consumer service platform under Sina). A search for the keyword “Mobile deductions” on the Black Cat complaint platform on April 4th showed an increase in complaints to 47,711.
Many consumers have complained that their mobile phones were unknowingly subscribed to value-added services such as “nighttime data packages” and “video memberships,” with some claiming “approximately 3,000 yuan charged in erroneous deductions”. Others have complained that “China Mobile has been deducting fees for value-added services for 13 years,” stating that “from October 22, 2016, China Mobile unilaterally activated the Migu monthly reading service, deducting 6 yuan per month until now…”
According to the data from Black Cat complaints, within 30 days, China Mobile received 7,234 complaints, China Unicom had 3,067 complaints, and China Telecom had 2,571 complaints. Just on this platform, within a month, consumers filed a total of 12,872 complaints against the three major telecommunication operators in China.
On March 29th, a customer complained that the current consumption is too high and can’t afford it, requesting to switch to an 8 yuan package, which was denied by China Mobile. Another customer stated that they have been receiving text message reminders for packages lower than 20 yuan, constituting harassment.
Due to the economic downturn and consumer downgrade, many people have already switched to the 8 yuan basic plan for their phones. A netizen named “Tianxian” from Dongguan, Guangdong, discovered a “call reminder” costing 2 yuan per month, which China Mobile had been charging for 11 years before being noticed. After multiple communication attempts with customer service and complaints to the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, he finally received a refund of the total deducted fees over 11 years amounting to 270 yuan.
A netizen from Beijing mentioned that even though they only recharge 8 yuan each month, they suddenly found outstanding fees due to a 10 yuan roaming charge and an additional 2.88 yuan call transfer fee. After lodging a complaint, instead of resolution, they were bombarded with nine calls from China Unicom in the middle of the night.
For over a month, a Chengdu citizen named Xie Junbiao has been publicly reporting on the issue of arbitrary charges by Sichuan Telecom online, facing account restrictions and post deletions.
On March 13th, he discovered that his two phone numbers at home had been charged an extra 64 yuan per month by China Mobile and 39 yuan per month by China Telecom, totaling to hundreds of yuan being charged. Twenty years ago, he incidentally noticed the widespread phenomenon of telecommunication companies overcharging, had complained before, yet the companies use the same old tactics today.
Xie Junbiao confirmed that China Mobile has refunded four times the phone fees, but China Telecom had also subscribed to a 39 yuan service per month without consent. Although the telecom company refunded the fees for 10 months amounting to 390 yuan and promised compensation of 100 yuan, they refused to admit their fault.
Xie Junbiao believes that Sichuan Telecom’s illegal operations and arbitrary charges constitute consumer fraud. He highlighted that subscribing to a service requires customer confirmation either through signatures or identity verification, and at the very least a text message code.
On March 14th, Xie protested in front of the Sichuan Telecom company in Chengdu with a black paper. He folded the paper with a large cross in the middle.
“If we can’t protest, then we’ll show our weakness,” Xie Junbiao revealed, saying he took a cue from rights activist Tan Zuoren. Back in 2008, to protest against the construction of a petrochemical factory in Chengdu Pengzhou, Tan Zuoren lifted a white paper folded in half, calling on Chengdu citizens to oppose covert operations using “white”.
Xie Junbiao’s actions also drew the attention of the Shuangnan Police Station in the Wuhou District of Chengdu, where the Sichuan Mobile company is located, as they called him to “legally express demands and avoid radical behavior”.
Xie’s demands include: 1. Telecom companies are suspected of fraud, with a large number of victims and significant financial losses, having a severe impact and arousing public outrage, so he demands a police investigation. 2. He requires Sichuan Telecom to issue a public apology on online platforms. 3. According to the Consumer Rights Protection Law, he demands a refund of three times the losses.
Xie Junbiao also accused the Chengdu Municipal Market Supervision and Administration Bureau of dereliction of duty. He stated, “Even small-scale consumer rights sometimes require an extraordinary effort, which is the tragedy of our generation!”
On March 27th, China Telecom’s customer service publicly responded to him on Weibo, suggesting contacting them for further details privately to facilitate swift resolution.
Investigation shows that many users have complained recently that operators have activated TV memberships and value-added services without authorization. Some of these charges have been attributed to “system loopholes,” like inadvertent clicks on TV ads resulting in direct deductions.
A Weibo user, named “Chengdu Violent Bottom Fisher,” mentioned, “My child accidentally ordered a certain film and television service on the TV screen, directly charging 39 yuan per month. Isn’t there any verification process?”
A netizen from Tangshan, Hebei, stated that his father had been charged 2,500 yuan over a few years and despite a month of complaints, the issue is unresolved. “The telecom company claims it was ordered via television, but my father doesn’t know how to scan codes on TV or enter verification codes, so how did it happen? If money is deducted by just clicking on the TV, what’s the difference from directly taking it from the customer’s pocket?”
Netizens believe that operators’ arbitrary charging and defrauding users is akin to scams in Myanmar, with the only difference being the modus operandi. They view the practice of charging fees arbitrarily as akin to thuggery.
Legal scholar Li Yuqing, in an interview with Dajiyuan, mentioned that there is a contractual relationship between telecommunication companies and customers, wherein both parties should be aware of their rights and obligations. It is outlined in the Consumer Rights Protection Law and Contract Law, meaning that arbitrary addition of services involves an element of fraud.
The phenomenon of arbitrary charges by Chinese telecommunication companies has always been prevalent. On March 15th, an investigation by “Xinhuashidian” acknowledged that various sales gimmicks and misleading practices in the telecommunications industry persist, including inducements to upgrade and hidden deductions. In response, the three major operators pledged to conduct a comprehensive self-inspection.
Li Yuqing believes that the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) is only for show. All government departments are usually inactive. For instance, issues like food safety and incidents like the mixing of edible oil with waste oil are eventually hushed up. With 365 days in a year, how much can be resolved on just “3.15”?
Why have Chinese telecom companies dared to engage in arbitrary charging for over 20 years? Li Yuqing explained that it’s because China is not a rule-of-law country, and its power is unchecked. China Mobile, China Unicom, and China Telecom are the same, enjoying the protection of the CCP due to being state-owned enterprises, making it difficult for people to safeguard their rights. Most people do not have the time or resources for such battles.
In the current economic slide, Li believes that telecom companies and other state-owned enterprises will intensify their means of exploiting consumers. Using various tactics, they become more insidious, making it nearly impossible for ordinary people to defend themselves.
Independent commentator and former Beijing lawyer Lai Jianping, in an interview with Dajiyuan, stated that “3.15” is just for show. This falls under deceptive consumption, a form of fraud that is tacitly endorsed by public regulatory authorities who have sectoral protection mandates. This issue has turned into a cat-and-mouse game.
“They actually have an algorithm, and most people are clueless. They are tricked, misled, or consumed without being aware. Most people accept it either silently or unknowingly. Sometimes they get caught and must refund three times or even face fines, but overall, they still profit. It is lucrative for them.”
Lai believes that this reflects the grim economic situation in the country. People are not financially stable, so they try to recoup their losses. What might have been insignificant previously, a few yuan or tens of yuan a month, adds up over the years, showing how much money the telecom companies have taken unfairly.
“In this situation, even flies are meat, and you can’t turn down a piece of iron on a needle tip, providing some comfort or help. People no longer turn a blind eye and with the harsh economic conditions, they are more financially strapped, motivating them to spend time and effort to ‘balance the books’ with telecom companies.”
Lai advocates not overlooking even small wrongs and stresses the importance of fighting for rights. With over a billion people in China, if each person is charged a bit extra, the total is staggering. Therefore, people need to wake up and take action. Ordinary consumers should wield the legal weapon to protect their legitimate rights to make telecom companies rethink their actions. Otherwise, it will form a vicious cycle, causing significant harm to consumers.