At the start of 2025, the smartphone market saw a collective wave of price increases. Due to factors such as rising chip costs and supply chain tensions, flagship models from multiple major brands generally saw price hikes of several hundred yuan, with some models increasing by over 10%. Meanwhile, data from market research firms showed that domestic smartphone shipments in the first quarter of 2025 fell nearly 15% year-on-year, hitting a five-year low. The price hikes and plummeting sales have formed a vicious cycle, with consumers holding back on purchases and manufacturers facing profit pressure, leaving the industry in a dilemma.

However, behind this seemingly pure market phenomenon, there are actually numerous legal risks hidden. From the consumer's perspective, is the price increase reasonable? Can companies unilaterally adjust prices? Is there false advertising in promotional activities? From the corporate perspective, do coordinated price increases cross the antitrust red line? Does the reduction in after-sales policies infringe on consumer rights? These issues urgently need to be clarified at the legal level. This article will analyze the legal boundaries in the wave of phone price increases from a lawyer's perspective, citing relevant provisions of the Civil Code, the Consumer Rights Protection Law, the

1. Consumer Rights Protection Amid the Mobile Phone Price Surge: The Right to Know and the Right to Fair Trade

The most direct impact of phone price increases falls on consumers. According to Article 8 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, consumers have the right to know the true circumstances of the goods they purchase, the services they use, or the services they receive. This means that when adjusting prices, companies must ensure that price information is transparent and open, and must not conceal the reasons for the price increase or mislead consumers through false discounts.

In practice, some mobile phone brands create a sense of scarcity through "limited releases" and "hunger marketing" before raising prices, and then hike prices citing "rising costs." If such a process involves fabricating original prices or engaging in false promotions, it may violate Article 14 of the Price Law, which prohibits using false or misleading pricing methods to deceive consumers. For example, a brand labeled a product on an e-commerce platform as "original price 5999 yuan, now 5499 yuan," but the actual original price was never sold at 5999 yuan. Such conduct constitutes price fraud, and consumers may claim "a refund of the price paid plus triple compensation" in accordance with Article 55 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law.

Additionally, price increases are often accompanied by configuration adjustments. Some manufacturers raise prices while simultaneously "reducing specifications," such as crippling fast-charging protocols or lowering screen quality, yet deliberately avoid mentioning these changes in promotional materials. This infringes on consumers' right to know. After purchase, consumers have the right to invoke Article 148 of the Civil Code to claim material misunderstanding and request rescission of the contract. Lawyers advise that consumers should retain evidence such as screenshots of promotional pages and chat records when purchasing devices, so that they can promptly assert their rights if they find the products do not match their descriptions.

II. Compliance Risks of Collective Price Increases by Enterprises: The Red Line of Antitrust Law

The upstream and downstream segments of the smartphone industry are highly concentrated, with a limited number of suppliers for core components such as chips and memory. If leading smartphone manufacturers tacitly agree to raise prices in unison, this could trigger the provisions of Article 17 of the Anti-Monopoly Law, which prohibits business operators in a competitive relationship from reaching monopoly agreements to fix or change prices of commodities. In 2024, the State Administration for Market Regulation imposed a hefty fine on a memory chip company for coordinated price increases, serving as a wake-up call for smartphone manufacturers.

However, it is extremely difficult to prove monopoly behavior. In practice, enforcement agencies must establish that there was "intentional communication" or "coordinated behavior" among enterprises, rather than determining monopoly solely based on synchronized price increases. Lawyers advise that when formulating pricing strategies, mobile phone manufacturers should make independent decisions and avoid exchanging price information at venues such as industry association meetings or supply chain conferences. If an enterprise genuinely needs to raise prices due to rising costs, it should independently calculate based on its own operational data and retain complete cost analysis records in preparation for antitrust review.

For small and medium-sized enterprises, if they are forced to raise prices following price hikes by leading manufacturers, they may face a loss of market share, but this does not mean they can join forces with other small brands to "raise prices collectively." According to Article 19 of the Antitrust Law, even if their market share is not high, coordinated actions that eliminate or restrict competition may still be prohibited. Lawyers remind that companies should establish internal antitrust compliance systems and provide regular training to sales and marketing departments to prevent unintentional violations of the law.

III. Reduced After-Sales and Warranty: Another Legal Trap Beyond Price Increases

In the wave of price increases, some manufacturers have quietly adjusted their after-sales policies to control costs, such as shortening warranty periods, listing certain parts as wear-and-tear items not covered by warranty, and raising repair fees. These practices directly affect consumers' right to fair trade. According to Article 24 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, if the goods or services provided by a business operator do not meet quality requirements, consumers may return the goods in accordance with national regulations or the parties' agreement, or require the operator to fulfill obligations such as replacement or repair. If manufacturers unilaterally lower warranty standards, it may constitute a breach of contract or infringement.

Mobile phones are durable consumer goods. According to the "Provisions on Repair, Replacement and Return Liability for Some Commodities" (i.e., the "Three Guarantees" regulations), the warranty period for the main unit shall not be less than one year. If a manufacturer promises "two-year warranty" in its promotional materials but then quietly changes it to one year through a system update, this may constitute false advertising. When consumers encounter such issues, they may file a complaint with the market supervision and administration department, or hold the manufacturer liable for breach of contract in accordance with Article 577 of the Civil Code.

Additionally, international brands like Apple and Samsung are often criticized in the Chinese market for having "warranty policies that differ between China and abroad," which involves the issue of national treatment. Under the Foreign Investment Law and the Consumer Rights Protection Law, foreign-branded products sold in China should be equally subject to Chinese law and must not discriminate against Chinese consumers. Lawyers have stated that if consumers find that the warranty services provided by foreign brands in China are clearly inferior to those in their home countries, they can assert that their right to fair dealing has been violated under Article 10 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law.

IV. Consumer Rights Protection Pathways and Lawyers' Practical Advice

Faced with phone price increases and potential rights infringement, consumers are not helpless. First, before purchasing a phone, consumers should thoroughly compare prices, pay attention to historical price trends, and use third-party price comparison tools to identify "fake promotions." Second, after payment, be sure to request an invoice and keep all transaction records. If price fraud or reduced after-sales service is discovered, consumers can first negotiate with the merchant, and if negotiation fails, file a complaint with the 12315 platform. For disputes involving larger amounts, consumers may authorize a lawyer to send a legal letter or file a lawsuit.

Lawyers specifically remind consumers to pay attention to the statute of limitations when protecting their rights. According to Article 188 of the Civil Code, the general statute of limitations is three years, calculated from the date the rights holder knows or should have known that their rights were harmed. If filing a lawsuit over a price increase dispute, the right must be asserted within the limitation period. At the same time, collective rights protection can increase the probability of winning a case, and consumers can jointly protect their rights through channels such as social media and consumer associations.

For mobile phone companies, lawyers recommend introducing a legal review mechanism in price increase decisions to assess the compliance of price adjustments, and conducting compliance reviews of promotional copy to avoid using absolute terms such as "lowest price" or "best deal in history." At the same time, companies should establish a rapid response mechanism for consumer complaints to resolve disputes promptly and prevent them from escalating into public opinion incidents.

Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm has been deeply engaged in the fields of consumer rights protection and corporate compliance for many years, having represented multiple cases of price fraud and after-sales disputes in the mobile phone industry, and possesses extensive practical experience. If you are currently facing mobile phone consumer disputes or corporate compliance concerns, you are welcome to contact our firm, and we will provide you with professional and efficient legal solutions.

The wave of phone price increases will eventually pass, but the law's protection of market order never fades. Whether consumers or businesses, only by respecting the law and adhering to the rules can they go far and steady in a fluctuating market.