[Lead Counsel: Wang Tengfeng, Cao Guanghui] I. Basic Case Facts

Under the strong recommendation of sales staff from China Mobile Communications Group Guangdong Co., Ltd. XX Branch (hereinafter referred to as China Mobile) for the "Family Network Favorite Number" service, which prominently emphasized "free incoming calls" in promotional materials, Shenzhen consumer Mr. Wang activated two Global Tone favorite numbers, 158155891XX and 150138223XX, on January 19, 2008, and May 20, 2008, respectively. Since August 1, 2007, China Mobile had publicly announced through various media (e.g., Shenzhen Commercial Daily) that Global Tone users would receive free incoming calls (i.e., implementing one-way billing). However, Mr. Wang gradually discovered that China Mobile continued to apply two-way billing to his favorite numbers 158155891XX and 150138223XX, charging him improperly for incoming calls.

Despite Mr. Wang's multiple attempts to negotiate with China Mobile, the company remained arrogant and unresponsive. Consequently, Mr. Wang decided to entrust Lead Counsel Wang Tengfeng and Counsel Cao Guanghui from Zhiming Law Firm to file a lawsuit against China Mobile, demanding an apology, compensation for call charges, and related transportation and lost work expenses, with call charge losses calculated at twice the amount fraudulently overcharged for incoming calls.

II. Disputed Focus

The core dispute in this case centered on whether the defendant's unauthorized overcharging for incoming calls constituted consumer fraud and infringement against the plaintiff.

III. Case Outcome

On February 19, 2009, the Shenzhen Futian District People's Court issued a first-instance judgment [(2009) Shen Fu Fa Min Chu Zi No. 507]:

(1) The defendant charged the call reception fee as agreed by both parties, and the agreement did not violate mandatory legal or regulatory provisions, so both parties should comply with it.

(2) The report in *Shenzhen Commercial Daily* about Global Call users receiving calls for free cannot serve as a basis to restrict the defendant's charging practices.

(3) The defendant did not engage in any illegal actions or fault in the fee collection process, and the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant's actions constituted infringement. Therefore, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims.

(4) The plaintiff, dissatisfied, continued to entrust lead attorney Wang Tengfeng and attorney Cao Guanghui to appeal to the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court on March 30, 2009. After intense courtroom debates in the second instance, under the court's mediation, the defendant, recognizing its fault and under pressure, reached a settlement with the plaintiff appellant on July 1, 2009, agreeing to double compensate the plaintiff for the call reception fee losses and bear the second-instance case acceptance fee. The second-instance court issued a civil ruling [(2009) Shen Zhong Fa Min Yi Zhong Zi No. 973] to conclude the case.

3. IV. Case Analysis

(5) Although the disparity in power between the plaintiff and defendant in this case was stark—one being an ordinary consumer with limited resources, the other a seemingly powerful unscrupulous operator—the courtroom debates during both trials were exceptionally fierce.

(6) Bearing the mission of exposing and challenging the hidden rules of powerful enterprises, the plaintiff and the entrusted attorneys consistently argued, focusing on the key disputes of the case:

(1) This case is a lawsuit based on consumer fraud infringement.

(2) The court of first instance limited itself to the mobile phone number service agreement itself, ignoring the defendant's misleading promotional materials, the fact that the defendant had long implemented free incoming calls for Global Connect users, and the ambiguity arising from the defendant's standard-form contract. It failed to make an interpretation unfavorable to the defendant as the provider of the standard terms, and one-sidedly emphasized the duty of care of the vulnerable consumer, thus erroneously applying the law.

(3) (II) The defendant's statutory obligations as an operator and the illegality of its conduct

(4) Article 8 and Article 19 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests explicitly stipulate the plaintiff's right to know the truth and the defendant's obligation to provide truthful service information. The defendant's conduct of employing others to engage in deceptive sales inducement fully meets the definition of fraud under Article 68 of the Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China (Trial Implementation), and constitutes one of the fraudulent consumer behaviors explicitly defined in the Measures for Punishing Fraudulent Consumer Behaviors.

(5) (III) The evidentiary validity of the report in Shenzhen Commercial Daily and the policy documents of the provincial government's competent authorities

(6) According to Article 9 of the Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Proceedings, facts that are well known to the public do not require proof by the parties. Therefore, in this case, the defendant's public report in Shenzhen Commercial Daily (a party newspaper) on the implementation of a one-way charging policy (i.e., free incoming calls) for Global Connect users is a fact known to everyone, and the authenticity and legality of the relevant report as evidence are beyond doubt. Meanwhile, according to the policy documents of the relevant provincial competent authorities provided by the defendant, the new tariff standard should be publicly announced in local radio, television, or designated newspapers before implementation. So, through what means and in which media did the defendant fulfill its obligation to publicly announce the new incoming call charging standard for family and close contact numbers? The defendant is at a loss for words on this point. In fact, the relevant report in Shenzhen Commercial Daily was precisely the manifestation of the defendant's obligation to announce the implementation of the new free incoming call standard. Its reversal and private imposition of incoming call charges on the plaintiff were never publicly disclosed in any open media, which precisely proves the illegality of the defendant's private charging.

In summary, the defendant's overcharging of mobile phone fees in this case fully meets the legal elements of consumer fraud infringement and should bear corresponding compensation liability according to law. Due to well-known practical reasons, the court of first instance openly endorsed the infringer. Through unremitting efforts and struggles in the first and second instances, the plaintiff ultimately achieved a phased yet symbolic victory, and the plaintiff's actions will undoubtedly contribute to the establishment and development of a fair and just market competition order in China during its social transition period. (Compiled and commented by Cao Guanghui)