The Evolution of Dark Web Lending① Loan Funds Bitten Upon Arrival, Hidden Fees Breach Interest Rate Red Lines

Part 1: “Deception in the Sky” Chapter

You might think that a 24% interest rate cap is a “ceiling” and a “protective talisman,” but this could just be the start of another “cat-and-mouse game.” According to the latest analysis from the China Consumers Association, there is a clear pattern of disguised “usury” in non-bank financial credit complaint data. Some consumer finance companies, small loan firms, guarantee companies, and others have become “hotspots.” In response, Nandu Finance Society launched a series called “Deformation of Black Online Lending” during this year’s “315” Consumer Rights Day, exposing how certain online lenders use tactics like deception, misdirection, and fabrication to build closed-loop profit chains, break through interest rate caps, and ultimately stage multiple “high-interest plays.”

“A simple loan, and I was inexplicably charged a membership fee. I still don’t know what this membership is for,” complained a financial consumer from Shandong to the Society’s reporter. Just a regular loan, why would a membership fee be involved? He remains puzzled and is completely unaware of any membership services.

In fact, this is not an isolated case. Many consumers report that after borrowing on internet lending platforms, their bank cards were unknowingly charged varying amounts of “membership fees,” ranging from hundreds to over a thousand yuan.

Behind many consumer complaints is a clear regulatory red line: the total annualized cost of loans must not exceed 24%. However, some platforms operate illegally by splitting pricing into “interest + membership fee,” keeping the visible interest within compliant limits, then charging additional fees under the guise of membership, causing the actual total financing cost to break through regulatory red lines.

This issue of “deception” will uncover how hidden charges bypass the interest rate cap and why borrowers are the first to be “bitten” by membership fees.

Instant Membership Fee Deduction upon Loan Disbursement

Mr. Li (pseudonym), in urgent need of funds, successfully borrowed 3,000 yuan on the 58HaoJie platform. Unexpectedly, 210 yuan was deducted from his linked bank account, labeled as “membership fee.” Mr. Li pondered for a long time but couldn’t recall ever signing up for any related membership service.

Confused about this deduction, Mr. Li contacted his bank and learned that the deduction was made by “Shanghai Shantai Network Technology Co., Ltd.” Hearing this name, he was even more confused, with no memory of any connection.

He then contacted platform customer service and was told that the fee came from his borrowing activity on 58HaoJie. The customer service said the deduction was because Mr. Li checked a box when signing the loan agreement, but Mr. Li denied this, insisting he never saw any membership fee option nor knew the fee’s specific standards. Although 210 yuan seems small, for a 3,000 yuan principal, it accounts for 7%, which is not insignificant.

Nandu Finance Society’s investigation found similar complaints everywhere. For example, on the Black Cat Complaint platform, searching “58HaoJie + membership fee” yielded 817 complaints. These complaints show that the membership fee amounts vary from dozens to over a thousand yuan.

It’s worth noting that this phenomenon is not limited to 58HaoJie. Platforms like “Quanmin Wallet,” “Jinying Installments,” and “Yidehua” also face numerous related complaints. A search for “loan + membership fee” on Black Cat Complaint shows a total of 81,353 cases.

Among these complaints, some involve obvious “bundled charges.” For example, consumers complain that Yikoudai defaults to selecting and forcibly bundling membership during the loan process. Without opening the membership, they cannot proceed. One consumer paid a total of 3,891 yuan for this forced bundling.

Consumers are often confused: Why are they being charged membership fees? They are unaware of this. What exactly are the membership benefits? They are equally in the dark. This “bundled” membership fee traps consumers in a situation where they can’t clearly calculate costs or get refunds, significantly increasing their actual borrowing costs.

Uncovering the “Hidden Corners” of Contract Terms

When consumers communicate with platform customer service, the core conflict is always: the platform insists “the user has checked the relevant agreement,” but consumers firmly believe “they have never seen any deduction clause.” So, do these invisible fee clauses really exist?

Currently, platforms that engage in hidden “membership fee” charges mainly do so by deliberately hiding these fees in four ways: presentation of terms, naming, operational design, and psychological cues, forming a complete “invisible fee” routine.

First, the fee clauses are buried in dozens of pages of electronic loan agreements. These platforms do not highlight membership fee details separately but mix them with numerous legal provisions. For users eager to complete the loan, reading lengthy agreements word by word is nearly impossible, making these clauses effectively “invisible.”

Second, some platforms deliberately obscure the concept of “membership fee.” Instead of explicitly stating “this loan will deduct a membership fee of X yuan,” they use terms like “rights and benefits service fee,” which seem necessary for the loan process. Consumers often mistake these as normal loan procedures, unaware that these are actually extra membership service charges.

Third, the “default check + one-click agree” operation design traps users into “passive consent.” Options like membership activation, auto-renewal, and fee authorization are often pre-selected; the buttons only say “Confirm Loan,” “Withdraw Now,” or “Agree to Terms,” without separate, prominent confirmation for membership fees. When users click “Confirm Loan,” they unknowingly agree to the fee clauses.

Fourth, platforms exploit consumers’ urgent need for funds by rushing the process. Some apps promote “fast approval, quick disbursement,” with frequent page jumps. Critical agreements containing fee clauses are not paused or emphasized; some only display the agreement after approval. Consumers, eager to get the money quickly, have no time to carefully review the details.

The Cat-and-Mouse Game of Bypassing Interest Rate Caps

From consumer feedback, these “membership fees” have become a new form of “cut-head interest,” which is explicitly prohibited by regulators. Why do platforms dare to take such risks? The underlying business logic is to break through the loan interest rate ceiling.

On October 1, 2025, the “Notice on Strengthening the Management of Internet Lending Business of Commercial Banks and Improving Financial Service Quality” (the “New Lending Regulations”) took effect. The new rules require that all loan-related costs be included in the comprehensive financing cost, which must not exceed 24%. The comprehensive financing cost includes all interest and fee expenses directly related to the loan, such as interest, guarantee fees, insurance, etc.

A consumer finance company insider told Nandu Finance Society that their company has kept the comprehensive cost of all active products around 20%, fully compliant with the new regulations. However, for the many small and medium-sized online lending platforms, the 24% interest rate cap is a matter of life and death.

He explained that the pricing for online credit customers generally falls into three tiers: 18%, 24%, and 36%, corresponding to different risk groups. For smaller, less established platforms, high customer acquisition, funding, risk control, and operational costs make it difficult to operate within a 24% cap. If they strictly limit the total rate to 24%, they may not cover costs and could face losses.

Driven by profit, platforms engage in a “cat-and-mouse game” with regulators. They disguise part of the interest as “membership fees” or “benefit packages.” Specifically, the displayed loan contract interest rate is kept within 24%, but through partnerships with third-party benefit providers, they sell “benefit packages” that include “accelerated disbursement,” “credit limit increase,” and various coupons. These “benefit fees” are not counted as interest but are charged separately as service fees.

This approach allows platforms to achieve “two birds with one stone”: on the surface, the loan contract appears fully compliant and easily passes regulatory review; meanwhile, collecting “benefit fees” makes up for profit gaps, causing the actual annualized rate to break through the 24% limit.

To further evade risk, some platforms even separate the membership service provider as a third-party company, creating a “risk isolation wall.” When consumers complain about deductions, the platform shifts responsibility to the third-party service provider, avoiding liability.

Breaking Out of the “Membership Fee” Routine Maze

With the rapid development of online lending, the phenomenon of platforms secretly deducting “membership fees” through vague prompts, default selections, and hidden fee names has become increasingly prominent. This behavior severely infringes on consumers’ rights and disrupts the normal financial market order. The underlying legal issues involve responsibility attribution, rights protection, and regulatory governance, requiring a comprehensive normative framework.

Lawyer Lin Firan from Kyoto Law Firm pointed out that if platforms deduct fees without consumers’ knowledge or use vague names to directly charge “membership fees,” such actions are likely infringing.

He emphasized that according to Article 509 of the Civil Code, parties should act in good faith, fulfilling notification, assistance, and confidentiality obligations based on the nature, purpose, and customs of the contract. Direct or covert deduction of membership fees by platforms clearly violates the principle of good faith. Moreover, the Consumer Rights Protection Law grants consumers the right to be informed, to choose freely, and to fair transactions. Platforms hiding fee information or bundling memberships forcibly infringe on these core rights.

It is also noted that the “Guidelines for the Management of the Comprehensive Financing Costs of Small Loan Companies” jointly issued by the National Financial Regulatory Authority and the People’s Bank of China explicitly require that all fees of small loan companies be included in the comprehensive annualized cost, with no hidden splitting.

Regarding the standards for “reasonable prompts” of fee clauses, Lin Firan believes that prompts should be sufficiently noticeable, such as bolding or blackening relevant content in electronic contracts, setting mandatory reading and confirmation steps. Specific rules about membership fee amounts, deduction times, and service content should be emphasized, possibly with red highlights or secondary confirmation steps.

In fact, the lack of “reasonable prompts” is the core issue behind the hidden “membership fee” problem in online lending. Lin Firan pointed out that many electronic loan agreements are lengthy, and users rarely read them carefully; thus, fee clauses are often overlooked or skimmed over.

On practical advice, Lin Firan stressed that when consumers discover unexplained deductions, the first step is to gather key evidence to support their rights. Essential evidence includes full screenshots of the loan agreement, loan information, bank deduction records, platform billing details, and communication records with customer service, including recordings and screenshots. If consumers can find promotional posters or pages showing low-interest rates, these can strengthen their case.

For platform operators, Lin Firan recommends fulfilling their responsibilities seriously: redesign products to separate membership services from loans, ensuring consumers’ right to choose; use clear prompts like pop-ups and secondary confirmations to ensure informed consent; and establish easy refund channels, providing full refunds to those who did not actually enjoy membership services, without unreasonable barriers.

Ultimately, the “routine maze” of membership fees turns a simple loan into a game full of tricks, damaging not only consumers’ wallets but also the trust foundation of the entire financial industry. The game around interest rate caps can only be resolved through joint efforts of regulators, platforms, and consumers, to eliminate the survival space for hidden fees and promote a regulated, healthy development of the online lending industry.

Coordinator: Li Ying

Executive Coordinator: Lu Liang

Reporting: Nandu·Wancai Society Reporter Wu Hongsen