Recent months have seen Beijing’s crackdown on China’s big tech firms intensify, from strict data security checks to mandates tying apps to “national green development goals.” Now, food delivery platforms like Meituan and Eleme are in the spotlight, with social media flooded by angry users: “Old accounts pay more for the same noodles! The government must stop this ‘unfair’ price discrimination!”
But here’s the inconvenient truth: these apps aren’t cheating you.
If regulators step in to “fix” pricing, they will only make your takeout more expensive and strip away the very choices that keep costs low.
Scroll through TikTok or WeChat and the outrage is hard to miss. A Shanghai student posts a screenshot: her ¥18 bowl of beef noodles costs a new user just ¥12. A Beijing office worker rants that his go-to milk tea is ¥10 pricier on his year-old account. The call for intervention is explicit. In late August, a Douyin food blogger with millions of followers posted a video criticising the pricing and urged, “The government must step in to stop these platforms from discriminating against old users. It’s unfair to loyal customers.” It’s easy to sympathise. I’m not alone in this frustration. In early September, a user on Weibo shared their complaint about Eleme, saying, “I’ve used the app for three years, and my usual ¥35 breakfast sandwich now costs new users only ¥21.” But anger misses the point: price discrimination isn’t greed; it’s how competitive markets work.
Companies use variable pricing to serve everyone, not just to punish loyal users. New-user discounts lure people away from rivals (think Meituan vs. Eleme fighting for market share). Higher prices for regulars aren’t a penalty; they’re a choice. Most long-term users value convenience over cost. They order with one tap, skip comparing apps, and prioritise speed. If they didn’t, they would switch, and that’s exactly what my friends and I did. I started a group chat to share price differences, and within two weeks we found a dozen examples of variable pricing. Three of us moved to apps with better deals for regulars; others used family members’ new accounts for discounts. Within a month, one platform adjusted its pricing to win us back. That’s the power of markets: consumers vote with their feet, and companies listen.
Critics argue that government intervention is necessary to protect people who can’t switch apps, such as seniors or low-income users. Just last month, a Weibo lifestyle blogger with hundreds of followers posted a thread: “My grandma can’t figure out new app accounts. She pays ¥5 more for porridge every time. The government must stop this!” A recent op-ed in a leading tech publication also echoed this, writing, “Without regulation, delivery platforms will keep exploiting vulnerable groups like low-wage workers.” While this concern sounds compassionate, it overlooks the second-order consequences: the harm regulation would cause. If Beijing bans price discrimination, apps can’t offer new-user promotions to compete. They will have to charge everyone the same price, and that price will be higher. A 2023 study of similar rules in Europe found that delivery costs rose 15 percent when discounts were banned. New users, who once got cheap meals to test apps, stopped signing up. Smaller platforms, which rely on promotions to challenge Meituan and Eleme, would fold. Even worse, the “vulnerable users” regulators want to help would lose senior-exclusive discounts (like Eleme’s 15 percent off for users over 60) and targeted offers for low-wage workers (such as Meituan’s ¥3 coupons for food delivery riders). These are perks apps offer because variable pricing lets them balance profits and accessibility.
Critics argue that government intervention is necessary to protect people who can’t switch apps, such as seniors or low-income users. Just last month, a Weibo user shared a video of her 72-year-old mother’s food delivery bill, complaining, “New users pay ¥15 for the same meal that my mom pays ¥25 for. This is age discrimination!” The post went viral with nearly 200,000 shares. A recent op-ed in Caixin also called for stricter regulation, arguing that “vulnerable groups lack bargaining power against platforms.” While these concerns highlight real frustrations, they overlook how current pricing flexibility enables targeted support for seniors. If Beijing bans price discrimination, apps would lose the revenue model that funds such benefits.
A 2023 study of European delivery regulations found that discount restrictions led to a 15 percent increase in average prices, with senior users hit hardest. Smaller platforms relying on promotions to compete with Meituan and Eleme would likely exit the market, reducing overall choice. Even worse, what about the “vulnerable users” regulators aim to protect? They would lose some benefit programs, such as Eleme’s partnership with Shanghai’s Putuo District, where seniors using the platform’s “Elderly Version” app automatically qualify for double subsidies: government allowances (the amount is determined by age) plus platform coupons, cutting a ¥23.75 meal to just ¥16.25. Low-wage workers would also miss out on perks like Meituan’s ¥3 daily coupons for delivery riders, a targeted benefit made possible by variable pricing. These aren’t random handouts but carefully calibrated systems balancing profitability and accessibility.
When governments override market choices, they don’t protect people. Instead, they stifle competition. Individuals know their needs better than regulators. If a user dislikes a price, they don’t need to pay it. They can switch platforms, share deals, or wait for a promotion. The best watchdog for your takeout budget isn’t a regulator in Beijing. It’s consumers.
