Corporate misconduct is a universal problem, but the behavior described in this case is outrageous. I am not familiar with the exact protocols for raids in Western countries, but regardless of jurisdiction, the level of violence and resistance shown by employees against inspectors is entirely unacceptable.
Beyond the specific "ghost takeout" scandal, actions such as physical assault and obstruction of justice must result in severe penalties, both for the individuals involved and the corporation itself.
Frankly, China’s justice system appears far too lenient in these matters. When a speeding ticket is only a 100 yuan fine, or when corporate obstruction is met with little consequence, it creates a "Wild West" environment where certain business owners believe they are above the law.
As a remedy, the specific company that exhibited the most violent resistance should have its platform shut down entirely for one week. No transactions, no operations. That kind of financial shock is the only way to ensure their behavior changes before the next inspection.
In Australia, engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct is not only an offence, it can also be a basis for civil proceedings by private individuals (or firms) seeking compensation for loss caused by misleading or deceptive conduct. But it puzzles me why not more countries (including China and Malaysia) don’t just straightforwardly make misleading or deceptive conduct unlawful and a basis for seeking compensation.
Anyway, interesting to read about this investigation. Even writing about it must have been challenging, let alone actually investigating the matter.
I agree that laws need to be implemented in China. Additionally, an agency should be established to monitor companies’ compliance and impose severe penalties on those that violate the rules.
If China is serious about shifting from an export-driven economy to a consumer-driven one, the government must act as a protector of consumers, ensuring that companies do not engage in deception or fraud. Without such safeguards, consumers are unlikely to take the risk of paying higher prices for higher quality, if scams remain a real concern. Ultimately, building trust is essential to increasing both the quantity and quality of consumption.
Corporate misconduct is a universal problem, but the behavior described in this case is outrageous. I am not familiar with the exact protocols for raids in Western countries, but regardless of jurisdiction, the level of violence and resistance shown by employees against inspectors is entirely unacceptable.
Beyond the specific "ghost takeout" scandal, actions such as physical assault and obstruction of justice must result in severe penalties, both for the individuals involved and the corporation itself.
Frankly, China’s justice system appears far too lenient in these matters. When a speeding ticket is only a 100 yuan fine, or when corporate obstruction is met with little consequence, it creates a "Wild West" environment where certain business owners believe they are above the law.
As a remedy, the specific company that exhibited the most violent resistance should have its platform shut down entirely for one week. No transactions, no operations. That kind of financial shock is the only way to ensure their behavior changes before the next inspection.
Despite the wide range of users, pdd doesn’t have good reputation in China, many complained about the misleading statements on their website.
In Australia, engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct is not only an offence, it can also be a basis for civil proceedings by private individuals (or firms) seeking compensation for loss caused by misleading or deceptive conduct. But it puzzles me why not more countries (including China and Malaysia) don’t just straightforwardly make misleading or deceptive conduct unlawful and a basis for seeking compensation.
Anyway, interesting to read about this investigation. Even writing about it must have been challenging, let alone actually investigating the matter.
I agree that laws need to be implemented in China. Additionally, an agency should be established to monitor companies’ compliance and impose severe penalties on those that violate the rules.
If China is serious about shifting from an export-driven economy to a consumer-driven one, the government must act as a protector of consumers, ensuring that companies do not engage in deception or fraud. Without such safeguards, consumers are unlikely to take the risk of paying higher prices for higher quality, if scams remain a real concern. Ultimately, building trust is essential to increasing both the quantity and quality of consumption.
Thanks for your endorsement! Building trust also benefits small business, not just consumers.
I agree with you! 🙂
This matter clearly demonstrates that past regulation of these internet giants was virtually ineffective.