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

Part 1: “Deceiving the Sky to Cross the Sea” Chapter

You might think that a 24% interest rate cap is the “ceiling” and “protective charm,” 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, with some consumer finance companies, small loan companies, guarantee firms, and others becoming “hotspots.” In response, Nandu Bay Finance Society launched a series called “The Deformation of Black Online Lending” during this year’s “315” Consumer Rights Day, exposing how certain online lenders use tactics like deception, shifting charges, and fabricating charges to build a利益链闭环, break through the interest rate red line, 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 Bay Finance Society reporters. Just a regular loan—why would it involve a membership fee? He remains puzzled and knows nothing about the so-called membership services.

In fact, this is not an isolated case. Multiple consumers have reported 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%. Yet some platforms operate illegally by splitting “interest + membership fee” pricing models, keeping the visible interest within compliant limits, and collecting additional fees under the guise of membership fees, causing the actual comprehensive financing cost to breach regulatory red lines.

This issue of “deceiving the sky” will uncover how hidden charges break through the interest rate red line and why borrowers are the first to be “bitten” by membership fees.

Membership Fees “Bite” Immediately Upon Loan Disbursement

Mr. Li (pseudonym), who urgently needed money, successfully borrowed 3,000 yuan on the 58Haojie platform. Unexpectedly, 210 yuan was deducted from his linked bank account with the transaction 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 related dealings.

He then contacted the platform’s 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 had never seen any membership fee option or known the fee standards. Although 210 yuan seems small, for a principal of 3,000 yuan, it accounts for 7%, which is not insignificant.

Bay 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 fee standards vary widely, from dozens to over a thousand yuan.

It’s worth noting that this phenomenon is not limited to 58Haojie. Other small loan platforms like Quanmian Wallet, Jinying Installments, and Yidehua also have a large number of related complaints. A search on Black Cat Complaint with keywords “loan + membership fee” shows a total of 81,353 related cases.

Among these complaints, some involve obvious “bundled charges.” Consumers have reported that certain platforms default to check or force activation of membership during the loan process; without opening the membership, they cannot proceed. One consumer paid 3,891 yuan for this forced bundled membership service.

Consumers are often confused about two main issues: Why are they being charged membership fees? They have no idea; and what exactly are the membership benefits? They are equally unaware. This “bundled” membership fee traps consumers in a situation where they cannot clearly calculate costs or easily get refunds, significantly increasing their actual borrowing costs.

Uncovering the “Hidden Corners” of Contract Terms

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

In fact, platforms that engage in illegal “membership fee” deductions mainly hide these charges through four aspects: presentation of terms, naming, operational design, and psychological inducement, forming a complete “invisible fee” routine.

First, the deduction clauses are buried in dozens of pages of electronic loan agreements. These platforms do not highlight the membership fee details separately but embed them among 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 service fee” or similar, which seem necessary for the loan process. Consumers often mistake these as normal loan charges, unaware that they are actually extra membership service fees.

Third, the “default check + one-click agree” operation design traps users into passive consent. Options for membership activation, auto-renewal, and fee authorization are often pre-checked; the buttons only say “Confirm Loan,” “Withdraw Immediately,” or “Agree to Terms,” without a clear second confirmation of the membership fee. When users click “Confirm Loan,” they unknowingly agree to the deduction 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 platforms 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 Circumventing Interest Rate Limits

From consumer feedback, these “membership fees” have become a new form of “cutting 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 Aid Loan Regulations”) took effect. The new rules require that all loan-related fees be included in the comprehensive financing cost, which must not exceed 24%. The comprehensive cost includes all interest and fees directly related to the loan, such as interest, guarantee fees, insurance, etc.

A consumer finance company insider told Bay Finance Society that their company has kept the comprehensive financing costs 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 ceiling is a matter of survival.

This insider explained that online credit customer pricing is mainly divided into three tiers: 18%, 24%, and 36%, corresponding to different credit risk groups. For smaller platforms at the bottom, high customer acquisition, funding, risk control, and operational costs make it difficult to operate within a 24% cap—strictly controlling the overall rate might lead to losses.

Driven by profit, platforms and regulators are engaged in a “cat-and-mouse game.” Platforms disguise part of the interest as “membership” or “benefit package” fees. The specific approach is: the displayed loan contract interest rate is kept within 24%; meanwhile, through cooperation with third-party benefit providers, they sell “benefit packages” that include “accelerated disbursement,” “credit limit increase,” and various lifestyle 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 breach the 24% limit.

To further avoid risks, some platforms also separate the membership service provider as a third-party company, creating a “risk isolation wall.” When consumers complain about deductions, the platform often 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 checks, and hidden fee names has become increasingly prominent. This behavior not only severely infringes on consumers’ rights but also disrupts the normal financial market order. The complex legal issues behind this “membership fee” chaos—ranging from responsibility attribution to rights protection and regulation—require a comprehensive normative system.

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 behavior is likely an infringement.

Lin emphasized that according to Article 509 of the Civil Code, parties should follow the principles of good faith, fulfilling notification, assistance, and confidentiality obligations based on the nature, purpose, and transaction habits 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, autonomous choice, and fair transaction. Platforms that hide fee information or force bundling of memberships infringe on these core rights.

It is also noted that the “Guidelines for the Management of the Comprehensive Financing Costs of Microfinance Companies” jointly issued by the National Financial Supervision and Administration and the People’s Bank of China explicitly require that all fees of microfinance companies be included in the comprehensive annualized cost and not be hidden or split.

Regarding the standard for “reasonable prompts” for deduction 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 chaos of membership fee deductions on online lending platforms. Lin Firan pointed out that many electronic loan agreements are lengthy, and users rarely read them carefully; thus, membership fee clauses are often glossed over or ignored.

Regarding practical issues, 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 recordings or screenshots of communication with customer service. If the platform refuses to refund the membership fee, these materials will strengthen the case. Finding promotional posters or screenshots showing low-interest claims can also be advantageous.

For platform operators, Lin Firan recommends sincerely fulfilling their responsibilities: first, redesign products to separate membership services from loans, safeguarding consumers’ right to choose; second, use compliant prompts like pop-ups and secondary confirmations to ensure consumers are fully informed; third, establish a smooth refund process—full refunds should be unconditional for those who did not actually enjoy the membership service, with no unreasonable barriers.

Returning to the chaos of “membership fees” in online lending, a simple loan turning into a game full of routines not only damages consumers’ wallets but also undermines trust in the entire financial industry. The game around the interest rate ceiling can only be truly resolved when regulators, platforms, and consumers work together to eliminate the survival environment for hidden charges and promote a healthy, regulated development of the internet lending industry.

Coordinator: Li Ying

Executive Coordinator: Lu Liang

Reporting: Nandu Bay Finance Society Reporter Wu Hongsen