Meituan’s Refund Policy Sparks Consumer‑Protection Debate and draws Regulatory Crackdown on Fraud in China’s Gig‑Economy.

Meituan’s current policy gives merchants a 24‑hour window to respond to a customer’s refund request. If the merchant agrees, the platform processes the refund within seven business days, returning the money via the original payment method. For “Meituan Premium” delivery orders, a hard deadline is built into the system: if a rider has not arrived within 30 minutes of the promised delivery window, the order is automatically marked as eligible for a full refund, and the system approves it without further human intervention. When a user escalates a dispute – the so‑called “second‑stage” or appeal refund – the merchant’s only available response is to “agree.” Should the merchant decline, the case is handed over to Meituan’s customer‑service team, which must issue a decision within 72 hours.

On paper, the rules appear to tilt in favour of the buyer, a stance that aligns with China’s Consumer Protection Law and the “good faith” principle that underpins the country’s recent consumer‑rights push. In practice, the generous terms have produced an unintended side effect: a growing cadre of fraudsters who weaponize the refund process for profit. In late July, Beijing Chaoyang police detained a man for ten days after uncovering a scheme in which he placed multiple orders on Meituan, accepted the deliveries, and then filed refund claims citing “non‑delivery to the specified address” or “lost goods.” The platform absorbed the cost of the refunds, leaving both merchants and delivery riders financially unscathed, but the case underscored a vulnerability that regulators can no longer ignore.

Meituan’s response to the incident was swift. The company halted the offending user’s ability to place new orders, confirmed that all refunds had been borne by the platform rather than by merchants or couriers, and pledged to tighten its internal monitoring tools. Yet the episode is just the most visible illustration of a broader pattern that has been bubbling up across China’s gig‑economy giants. In addition to isolated scams, organized groups have been reported to exploit “brush‑order” schemes – fraudulent transactions designed to inflate sales figures – by coordinating with merchants and, in some cases, insiders within the platforms themselves. In these elaborate fraud loops, money can be simultaneously refunded to a consumer while a merchant still receives payment, creating a net loss that is ultimately borne by the ecosystem.

The ripple effects have not been confined to Meituan’s balance sheet. Merchants, especially small and medium‑sized eateries that rely on the platform for a significant share of their revenue, have expressed alarm that overly lax refund rules muddy the line between legitimate complaints and abusive behaviour. “When a customer can get a full refund simply because the rider was a few minutes late, we’re forced to absorb the cost and risk becoming unprofitable,” said Li Wei, the owner of a popular noodle shop in Chengdu. “At the same time, we have to keep our service standards high, otherwise we lose ratings and future orders.”

Industry observers note that the tension between protecting shoppers and shielding merchants is not unique to Meituan. Competitors such as Pinduoduo have rolled out “only refund” features that, while designed to safeguard buyers, can also be gamed by “wool‑gatherers” – users who repeatedly claim refunds without genuine grievances. The competition to deliver the most consumer‑friendly experience has, paradoxically, set the stage for a series of “refund wars” that threaten platform profitability and erode merchant trust.

Regulators have taken note. In recent months, market supervision departments and consumer councils in several municipalities, including Shanghai, have convened meetings with the leadership of Meituan, Ele.me and JD.com to discuss “fair competition” and “consumer rights protection.” The Shanghai Consumer Council publicly criticised Meituan’s refund processes for being opaque and for allowing misleading app content to confuse users about the conditions under which refunds are granted. Meanwhile, the Beijing Municipal Tax Bureau has been involved in guiding platforms on the proper issuance of electronic invoices – a seemingly peripheral issue that becomes consequential when refunds intersect with tax reporting and compliance.

These regulatory forays dovetail with a broader anti‑monopoly drive that has seen China’s State Administration for Market Regulation levy penalties on tech behemoths for a variety of unfair practices, from exclusive dealing to price‑setting. While the current focus is not strictly on refunds, the principle behind the crackdown – preventing dominant platforms from leveraging their market power in ways that disadvantage competitors or consumers – applies directly to how Meituan structures its settlement and refund flows.

The human dimension of the refund debate is also emerging in the gig‑economy discourse. Delivery riders, who often operate on the front lines of the refund process, are occasionally asked to intervene in late deliveries or to verify claims of non‑delivery. The stress of navigating these expectations, coupled with the precarious nature of gig work, adds another layer of complexity to an already fraught ecosystem. Analysts suggest that the “instability and challenges in the global labour world” – a theme echoed in recent academic studies – are quietly amplified in China’s high‑speed delivery market, where speed and reliability are the currency of success.

As the sector grapples with these intertwined challenges, Meituan has signalled a willingness to refine its policies. The company’s technology team is reportedly developing more sophisticated algorithms to detect anomalous refund patterns, while senior officials, including platform tax director Zhang Lei, are working with tax authorities to streamline the electronic invoicing process so that refunds are accurately reflected in merchants’ financial records. Nonetheless, the path forward remains delicate. Any tightening of refund rules risks alienating a consumer base that has come to expect near‑instant compensation, while a lax approach continues to invite exploitation.

The Meituan refund saga is a microcosm of the broader struggle faced by China’s digital platform economy: how to forge a sustainable balance between consumer empowerment, merchant viability and governmental oversight. The recent administrative detention of a fraudster may have sent a clear signal to would‑be scammers, but it also shines a spotlight on systemic vulnerabilities that demand coordinated action. As policymakers, platform operators and merchants continue to negotiate the terms of this new digital contract, the outcomes will reverberate far beyond a single app, shaping the future of e‑commerce, gig work and consumer protection in one of the world’s fastest‑evolving markets.