Shanghai Woman’s Midnight Lockout Sparks Nationwide Outcry Over Sky‑High Locksmith Fees.

On the night of August 16, Xiao Hui, a 26‑year‑old who lives alone in Putuo District, found herself standing outside her apartment after a work‑related trip. With the door locked behind her and the clock inching past midnight, she turned to a popular online platform that, at the time of her search, advertised a lock‑opening and replacement service for just 25 yuan. The listing promised “unlocking and lock replacement” at a “starting from 25 yuan” price, a figure that suggested a modest, one‑off charge for a routine job.

Two locksmiths arrived shortly after. After examining the door, they declared the lock could not be picked. Rather than retreat, they forced the existing lock out, installed a brand‑new, high‑security set and presented Xiao Hui with a bill totaling 2 410 yuan. The itemised charge included 580 yuan for the cylinder, 500 yuan for an anti‑pry lock body, 480 yuan for the handle, 150 yuan for a late‑night surcharge, 300 yuan for “forced entry,” and 200 yuan for installation. When she protested, the technicians pointed to the “graphic details page” of their online store, insisting the prices were clearly displayed and that even the police would not question them. They also claimed she had selected the lock components herself.

Feeling unsafe as the pair lingered past 1 a.m., Xiao Hui transferred 1 800 yuan via WeChat to have them leave. She later filed complaints through the platform and to local authorities. After an investigation and pressure from the platform’s functional departments, the service operator – Old Shanghai Locksmith and Lock Replacement Service Center (老上海开锁换锁服务中心) – admitted that the technicians’ conduct had been inappropriate and returned 800 yuan to the victim.

The episode quickly went viral. On Weibo, users rallied around Xiao Hui’s story, dubbing the fee “天价开锁” – a sky‑high locksmith charge – and accusing the providers of blatant price gouging. The fact that the victim was a solo female resident locked out in the dead of night amplified the public’s empathy, with many highlighting how such tactics prey on the vulnerability of women living alone. Netizens shared similar experiences of being lured by “starting from” prices that ballooned once a service was rendered, warning others to demand clear, upfront quotations and to document every step of the transaction.

Calls for stricter regulation reverberated through the comments. Users demanded that online marketplaces enforce transparent pricing and hold vendors accountable, arguing that the current model, which lets platforms profit from commissions while turning a blind eye to misconduct, is tantamount to “合法抢劫” – legalised robbery. Others urged the police to maintain a list of vetted locksmiths, suggesting that in emergencies, authorities should be the first point of contact rather than unregulated freelancers.

Beyond the immediate outrage, the incident has ignited a broader conversation about consumer protection in China’s home‑service sector. Industry observers note that the locksmith trade has long suffered from a lack of oversight, operating under ambiguous licensing regimes. When combined with the rapid expansion of app‑based service platforms, the environment can become fertile ground for opportunistic pricing schemes. The Xiao Hui case underscores how deceptive advertising – a low‑cost headline that masks a suite of hidden fees – can erode trust not only in individual companies but in the digital marketplaces that connect users to service providers.

For legitimate businesses, the backlash offers a stark reminder that transparency and fairness are now market differentiators. Ethical locksmiths who advertise clear rates, provide written estimates, and respect the consumer’s right to decline additional services stand to gain credibility in a climate of heightened scrutiny.

Policy‑makers are also feeling the pressure. Legislators and consumer‑rights groups have begun citing the case as evidence of a regulatory gap, calling for mandatory price disclosures for emergency services and stronger penalties for vendors who exploit vulnerable customers. Some suggest that a minimum‑price framework for after‑hours work could prevent predatory mark‑ups, while others argue for a centralized, government‑run registry of certified service providers accessible through the same platforms that currently dominate the market.

As the story continues to circulate, Xiao Hui’s experience serves as a cautionary tale for anyone who finds themselves locked out after dark. The prevailing advice on social media – confirm the total cost before work begins, avoid “starting from” offers that hide ancillary fees, record the interaction, and, if possible, involve the police to obtain a vetted locksmith – reflects a collective effort to protect one another from similar predicaments.

In the weeks since the incident, the platform that initially listed the 25‑yuan service has pledged to tighten its vetting procedures, and the local consumer bureau announced plans to conduct spot checks on locksmiths operating in the city. Whether these steps will translate into lasting change remains to be seen, but the public’s outcry has undeniably placed the issue front and centre, signalling that the days of unchecked exploitation in the name of urgent assistance may finally be numbered.