Chinese cellphone users are complaining that anti-fraud measures have left them without phone service with little warning, including one reported case in which a user was given just 10 minutes late at night to complete an identity verification process or face restrictions on the number.
A screenshot posted on Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu on Sept. 18 showed a text message from China Mobile saying the recipient’s number had “abnormal communication behavior.” The message said the verification was required to prevent the number from being illegally used by others and instructed the user to visit a China Mobile outlet within 10 minutes to complete real-name verification. Failure to complete or pass the verification would result in “temporary protective restrictions,” according to the message.
The screenshot showed the message had been sent at 11:30 p.m. The original post was later reposted by the prominent Chinese citizen journalist X account @whyyoutouzhele.
The user who posted the screenshot said his phone had been working normally and that he had not made calls or sent text messages before the service was suddenly suspended. He questioned how users were supposed to visit a mobile phone store in the middle of the night.
“Why can you cut off someone’s service in the middle of the night without reason or basis?” the user wrote. “How are people supposed to go to work the next day?”
The authenticity of the text message could not be independently verified by The Epoch Times.
Related Stories
The incident has nevertheless resonated with other Chinese netizens who described similar experiences with cellphone restrictions and difficulties getting their service restored.
Several individuals in China spoke to The Epoch Times regarding the matter on condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisal.
A resident in Guangdong Province told The Epoch Times that state-owned telecommunications companies such as China Mobile and China Unicom can suspend service with little warning because of their dominant position in the industry.
He said he had also received a request in March to complete an identity verification process, but at that time he was given 24 hours to complete facial recognition.
“They keep talking about fighting fraud, and they have gone crazy about it,” the resident said.
Broader Disruptions
Regime authorities and telecommunications companies have generally justified such measures as efforts to prevent fraud and stop phone numbers or financial accounts from being illegally used. However, people whose accounts or numbers are restricted can be left responsible for appealing the decision and waiting for service to be restored.
A Guangdong-based rights advocate, surnamed Zheng, told The Epoch Times the reported 10-minute verification requirement was particularly problematic because there was no corresponding deadline for restoring service.
Since Chinese phone numbers are commonly linked to text-message verification codes, online payments, and access to online accounts, a loss of service can extend beyond the ability to make calls.
Zheng said restrictions on a phone number could disrupt ordinary work and business activities.
The reported text message cited China’s Anti-Telecom and Online Fraud Law, but did not identify a specific provision supporting the late-night 10-minute verification requirement. The material available also did not contain an explanation from China Mobile of what abnormal activity had been detected.
A Shenzhen-based scholar, surnamed Zhu, told The Epoch Times that anti-fraud measures had increasingly been used by Chinese authorities as a means of restricting people’s communications and other activities.
“Anti-fraud has already become an important tool for the authorities to deal with the people and restrict freedom of movement, freedom of expression, and freedom of communication,” Zhu said.
He pointed to restrictions on bank accounts and mobile phone numbers as examples of how anti-fraud measures can reach into people’s daily lives.
The reported late-night suspension, Zhu said, also raises questions about how state-owned companies implement such measures and what responsibility they bear when restrictions are imposed incorrectly.
If a restriction is imposed in error, he said, the affected person may have to pursue the complaint themselves while also bearing the consequences of losing access to communications.
Ye Zilong contributed to this report.
