The Supreme Court Targets Food Delivery “Cheats”: Winning Orders Is No Longer About Speed, but About Algorithms and the Rule of Law
Hello everyone, I’m your financial journalist. Today, we’re going to discuss a topic that’s very close to our daily lives, but behind it lies a significant legal and economic battle—the use of “cheats” by food delivery riders to win orders.
On September 9th, the Supreme People’s Court released a series of cases highlighting unfair competition, with one case explicitly convicting the use of physical cheats (resulting in a civil loss for the seller). Simply put, businesses that sell devices that automatically grab orders for riders were deemed to be engaging in unfair competition and were held accountable.
This is more than just a technical issue; it affects our delivery experience, the livelihoods of millions of riders, and the fundamental fairness of the platform economy. Let me break down this matter into five key points to help you understand this “cat-and-mouse game” more clearly.
---
What are “Physical Cheats” and Why Are They More Deceptive than Software Cheats?
When people think of cheats, they usually imagine code used in games. However, in the food delivery industry, there are two types of cheats. The Supreme Court’s recent action targets a more concealed and sophisticated form—physical cheats.
- Software Cheats (the Old Trick): These are like installing an “auto-clicker” or “clairvoyance” on a phone. They require modifying the phone’s system permissions (such as root access) to automatically identify orders on the screen and click on them at millisecond speeds. Since they alter the phone’s system, these cheats are easily detected by platforms, and the phones can become unusable.
- Physical Cheats (the New Variant): The “order-grabbing devices” mentioned in this case are a typical example. They don’t require system modifications; they act as intermediaries between the phone and the platform app.
- How They Work: You connect the device to your phone, set the commands, and it simulates finger movements or sends “refresh” and “order-grab” signals directly to the app.
- Advantages: They appear to be normal operations, but in reality, a machine is doing the work. Because they don’t damage the phone’s system, they’re harder to detect by software-based security measures.
- Impact: Such devices have been sold for millions of yuan, indicating a high demand. They turn order grabbing into a battle between machines and humans, where ordinary riders have no chance of winning.
Simple Explanation: Software cheats are like installing illegal turbochargers on a car, which can cause overheating; physical cheats are like installing an autopilot, making it seem like the car is driving normally, but the steering is actually being controlled remotely, making it difficult for the “referee” (the platform) to detect.
---
Why Did the Supreme Court Rule It Unfair Competition?
Many might wonder: If riders use cheats to grab orders, it’s their personal choice, and the sellers are just providing a tool—how could that be illegal?
The Supreme Court’s ruling is clear: it breaks the misconception that tools are innocent. The court concluded that selling cheats constitutes unfair competition for three reasons:
1. They Break the Platform’s Rules: Platforms establish order-grabbing rules (e.g., first-come, first-served, proximity-based) to ensure fairness. Cheats circumvent these rules, similar to using cheating devices in exams, disrupting the entire system.
2. They Harm Other Operators: Riders who rely on speed to grab orders lose out on good ones, affecting their income. They are also operators (self-employed individuals), and their rights are violated.
3. They Harm Consumers: Although consumers might think faster delivery means faster service, cheats often target easy orders, leaving difficult ones unclaimed or poorly allocated, impacting overall efficiency and quality.
Key Point: The law now protects not just the platform but the fair competitive environment of the entire market. Cheaters undermine this fairness and must be held accountable.
---
The Real Situation for Riders: How Do Cheats Dominate Good Orders?
To give you a better sense of this, let’s hear from rider Sun Shoufeng, whose experience represents many ordinary riders:
- Who Suffers the Most? Older riders with slower speeds and new riders. They need time to adapt, but good orders are quickly snatched by cheats.
- What Makes an Order “Good”?
- Short Distances: Less time and effort for delivery.
- Convenient Locations: No need to climb stairs or search for complex addresses.
- Batch Orders: Multiple orders from schools or offices, which are more efficient.
- The Impact of Cheats: Cheats instantly grab these good orders. Even fast riders can’t compete with machines’ millisecond responses. As a result, good orders are monopolized by cheats, leaving the tough ones for the honest riders.
- Riders’ Struggles: Riders used to avoid areas with many cheats or avoid certain types of orders. This was a passive, desperate strategy.
Economic Perspective: This is a form of “bad money driving out good money.” If cheaters can easily earn extra profits while honest workers get low incomes, it undermines the industry’s vitality and may lead to rider turnover.
---
Platforms’ Countermeasures: From Speed to Algorithms
Platforms are not sitting idly by. The “secondary distribution” mechanism mentioned in the news, implemented by Meituan, is a crucial step forward:
- Old Rule: First-come, first-served (speed-based).
- This led to the proliferation of cheats because machines are faster than humans.
- New Rule: Secondary distribution.
- When multiple riders grab an order, the system waits a few seconds before assigning it, considering factors like the rider’s current workload, delivery history, and route planning ability.
- Goal: Assign orders to the “most suitable rider,” not just the fastest one.
Effect: Sun Shoufeng reported that since the new rule, he can grab dozens of good orders daily, with fewer interruptions from cheats. Cheats may be fast, but they can’t mimic the skills of experienced, well-planned riders. The system looks at overall efficiency, not just speed.
Simple Explanation: It’s like changing from a 100-meter race to a comprehensive fitness test, where speed, endurance, and teamwork are evaluated, not just speed.
---
Future Prospects: A Multidimensional Battle
Combating cheats requires a collaborative effort:
1. Judicial Measures (Setting Rules): The Supreme Court’s case sets a standard that selling cheats is unfair competition, making future rulings more consistent and effective.
2. Platform Technology (Enhanced Security): Platforms are improving their security systems to detect suspicious software and root access.
3. Biometric Identification: They’re using advanced algorithms to recognize fake faces and AI-generated images.
4. Administrative Regulation: Authorities are cracking down on cheats on e-commerce and social media platforms.
5. Industry Self-Regulation and Public Oversight: Encouraging riders and consumers to report cheats, with rewards for successful reports.
New Threats: Cheats are evolving, such as those using fake faces. The police in Jincheng, Shanxi, have caught such cases, and developers are moving from order-grabbing cheats to face-recognition cheats. The battle will continue to involve a mix of technology, law, and regulation.
---
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s case is more than a legal incident; it’s a signal that fairness is essential. No matter how technology advances, it cannot come at the cost of fairness. Algorithms help platforms reduce the effectiveness of cheats, shifting the focus from speed to ability. The rule of law, along with technological and social measures, ensures a fair competitive environment.
For consumers, this means faster and more efficient deliveries. For riders, it means that with effort and skill, they can get good orders, not just be outcompeted by machines.
This battle against cheats is just beginning, but the direction is clear: technology should serve the purpose of improving services, and competition should be fair.