--- title: "Pinduoduo: It's better to distribute the money to shareholders." type: "Topics" locale: "en" url: "https://longbridge.com/en/topics/40191035.md" description: "Last December's jaw-dropping essay was followed by news of two departments jointly entering Pinduoduo for investigation. With the 100,000 yuan fine issued by the Shanghai Changning Tax Bureau at the end of January, one shoe dropped. The other shoe, although we waited a long time, has finally dropped. The State Administration for Market Regulation has fined Pinduoduo 1.522 billion yuan. Globally, how to regulate super-platforms is a major issue. Fines are a very important tool, and they certainly need to be "proportionate to the offense." So this time, regarding the punishment of "ghost takeaway"..." datetime: "2026-04-24T16:18:21.000Z" locales: - [en](https://longbridge.com/en/topics/40191035.md) - [zh-CN](https://longbridge.com/zh-CN/topics/40191035.md) - [zh-HK](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/topics/40191035.md) author: "[林氪](https://longbridge.com/en/profiles/7312377.md)" --- # Pinduoduo: It's better to distribute the money to shareholders. Last December's jaw-dropping short essay was followed by news of two departments jointly conducting an investigation into Pinduoduo. With a 100,000 yuan fine from the Shanghai Changning Tax Bureau at the end of January, one shoe dropped. The other shoe, though we waited a long time, has finally fallen. The State Administration for Market Regulation has imposed a 1.522 billion yuan fine on Pinduoduo. Globally, how to manage super-platforms is a major issue. Fines are a very important tool, and they certainly need to "fit the crime." Therefore, in punishing "ghost food delivery," the market regulator decided to implement a "one-store-one-penalty" for the platform's failure to fulfill its review obligations, which is the way to ensure the punishment fits the crime. I personally strongly support the above decision. As the saying goes, brands rely on platforms, platforms are subject to the state, and above the state, there's G2. The operating logic of this world is hierarchical; leaving it unregulated is not an option. Thinking about it, I've also bought cakes online for my family before, but I placed the order on JD.com at the time. I was quite puzzled back then: how did this cake manage to cover so many areas and still be delivered on the same day? Relying on my trust in JD's self-operated service, I finally placed the order. Sure enough, it wasn't delivered by JD Logistics; it was a local same-day delivery service. I couldn't have thought of these things at the time, and the finished cake couldn't be returned. It was just that the pictures and descriptions were severely mismatched; the actual cake was completely different from the product image. After arguing with customer service for half the day, I was left fuming. Now I understand: this is order redirection. It's both funny and frustrating. Why did I think of JD.com when ordering a cake? Probably because of the filter of "JD Self-operated + JD Logistics," thinking there would be some particularly good solution. If I had known it was a redirection service, I would have definitely ordered from a local bakery. It's a real abuse of trust. Of course, the cake issue is the same on Pinduoduo. If a platform aims to bridge information gaps, I don't know how they understand order redirection. What's the difference between this, drop shipping, or ordering on Xianyu only for it to be shipped from Pinduoduo? Perhaps cake supply is a special case, so at this stage, this reality can only be allowed to exist. But the information should at least be symmetrical, right? Another reason for Pinduoduo's heavy fine is, of course, violent resistance to law enforcement. That was really foolish. It proves that even the smartest people can fall for conspiracy theories. Once you fall into conspiracy theories, you easily lose your judgment. Not taking it seriously at first, thinking the food delivery issue shouldn't involve investigating themselves, compounded by resistance fueled by conspiracy theories—ultimately, a small matter turned into a big one, leading to such bitter consequences. I really like the slogan "Believe in simplicity and common sense," so when I realized conspiracy theories could also circulate within such an organization, I felt very disappointed. Therefore, I think this penalty serves as a very good wake-up call. Some might think this isn't over, but I believe this incident should be in the past. What hasn't passed is the increasingly strict regulatory environment. The business model of super-platforms dictates they will inevitably face increasingly strict regulation. But I think these are necessary burdens to bear, both domestically and internationally. If they can't even handle these things properly, there's really no point. Might as well return the money to shareholders. $PDD(PDD.US) ### Related Stocks - [02618.HK](https://longbridge.com/en/quote/02618.HK.md) - [09618.HK](https://longbridge.com/en/quote/09618.HK.md) - [PDD.US](https://longbridge.com/en/quote/PDD.US.md) - [JD.US](https://longbridge.com/en/quote/JD.US.md) - [89618.HK](https://longbridge.com/en/quote/89618.HK.md) - [HJDD.SG](https://longbridge.com/en/quote/HJDD.SG.md) ## Comments (1) - **Fiona. · 2026-04-25T07:30:46.000Z**: Resisting the law by force is not stupid