360’s Recycling Platform “Tongchengbang” Accused of Malicious Price Suppression: Every Submitted Phone Allegedly Found with “Scratches”

360’s Recycling Platform Accused of “Malicious Price Cuts”: Blogger’s Old iPhone Value Slashed by Over ¥1,400 for Alleged “Scratches”

A recent viral complaint has reignited debate over China’s booming smartphone trade-in market. A blogger claimed to have fallen victim to a “malicious price suppression” scheme after using an e-commerce platform’s official trade-in service. The valuation for his old phone — initially quoted at over ¥4,400 — was abruptly reduced to just above ¥3,000, allegedly because of non-existent “scratches” on the device.

The Incident: From High Expectation to Deep Frustration

According to the blogger, on September 13 he purchased an iPhone 17 Pro Max through Apple’s official store on a major e-commerce site, opting for the trade-in service offered by the platform. The system quoted his old phone at ¥4,488.

By October 12, the blogger received the new iPhone and handed his old phone to the courier appointed by the platform. Three days later, on October 15, the platform notified him that his old phone had been received — but its assessed value had dropped to ¥3,017. The reason given: “obvious scratches and paint loss.”

A detailed inspection report with photos was provided, but the blogger argued the pictures showed no visible damage at all. Even if there were minor signs of normal use, he said, a deduction of nearly ¥1,500 was unreasonable and likely a deliberate act of price manipulation.

The Platform Behind the Controversy

Digging deeper, the blogger discovered that the trade-in program was handled by Tongchengbang, a recycling service owned by cybersecurity giant 360 Group. Online research revealed numerous similar complaints against the company — many users accused it of arbitrarily lowering valuations after receiving devices.

Examples included one customer’s agreed ¥6,001 price slashed to ¥3,395 for “minor scuffs,” and another user whose phone was devalued from ¥2,800 to just ¥1,080. In one extreme case, a ¥342 quote was cut to a mere ¥20.

The blogger reached out to the e-commerce platform’s customer service, arguing that if the recycler claimed damage, it must provide a complete unboxing video to prove the phone’s condition upon arrival. Without it, the justification for price cuts was invalid.

He also noted that photos from the inspection showed staff handling the device without gloves, raising the question: could the scratches have occurred during the inspection itself?

Missing Evidence and Rising Suspicion

Despite his demand for video proof, the blogger never received one. Instead, he got a text message asking if he would accept a revised offer of ¥3,200 — an extra ¥200 to “settle” the dispute. The blogger refused, saying such compensation ignored the lack of evidence.

After further escalation, a platform representative claimed the phone had “two white spots” and provided another photo — identical to the previous one, with no visible flaws.

Refusing the “Negotiation Game”

Frustrated by repeated price changes, the blogger decided to cancel the trade-in and request the immediate return of his old phone. What followed, however, was a barrage of calls from platform representatives “bargaining” to increase the offer: ¥3,200, then ¥3,600, and eventually ¥4,200.

The blogger refused each offer, stating that such back-and-forth bargaining was unprofessional and eroded consumer trust. A leaked call recording revealed a more troubling twist — a Tongchengbang representative allegedly tried to trick him into clicking “Cancel Return” while initiating a backend payout, which would have prevented the phone’s return. Fortunately, the blogger spotted the attempt in time.

After nine days of back-and-forth, the platform finally agreed to return the device — more than four days after the confirmation.

Trade-In System Lacks Verification Requirements

Tests on the same e-commerce platform’s Apple store revealed that users can trade in phones simply by answering questions about the device’s condition — such as whether the screen or body has scratches — without needing to upload any photos or proof. The platform then generates a price quote based on these answers.

Customer service confirmed that multiple recycling partners, including Tongchengbang, handle such transactions.

High Complaint Volume and Industry Concerns

Tongchengbang describes itself as a “professional recycling and quality-inspection service provider” under 360, covering full-cycle operations from recycling and retail to B2B supply chain solutions. It claims to follow ISO9001-certified quality standards and privacy protection procedures.

However, data from Sina’s Black Cat Complaint Platform paints a different picture — over 1,300 complaints have been filed against Tongchengbang, most citing unjustified price reductions.

Similar accusations flood the industry. Competing recyclers like Aihuishou and Zhuanzhuan have logged over 20,000 and 116,000 complaints respectively, many alleging the same “malicious undervaluation” tactics.

Expert View: Where Expectation and Reality Collide

According to Professor Wang Chunjuan, an expert with the China Business Economics Association, discrepancies between estimated and final trade-in values are not uncommon — pre-estimates are based on basic self-reported data, while actual inspection may consider wear, completeness, and accessories.

However, Wang emphasized that when the gap is excessive and lacks transparent justification, it undermines consumer confidence and could constitute false advertising if platforms exaggerate trade-in prices or fail to disclose all conditions clearly.

So, what do you think? Should recycling platforms be required to provide unboxing videos and stricter verification to protect users from unfair devaluation?