In April 2025, China’s food delivery sector witnessed a somewhat dramatic development, which attracted major attention online, when Chinese e-commerce giant JD.com publicly challenged food delivery leader Meituan.

On April 21, JD.com posted a noteworthy open letter titled “To All Fellow Food Delivery Rider Brothers” (各位外卖骑手兄弟们) on Weibo. In this letter, they accused Meituan (though not explicitly naming them) of monopolistic practices, after the company allegedly forced their delivery staff to stop accepting JD’s delivery orders. If riders chose to deliver for both companies anyway, they’d risk being blacklisted.

JD therefore accused Meituan of unethical behavior, neglecting their workers’ welfare, and pressuring part-time couriers to choose between platforms.

In their letter, JD vowed to support the freedom of Chinese delivery riders to accept orders from various platforms, and pledged to support those who were being blacklisted by offering them sufficient order volumes and full-time positions with benefits, including employment opportunities for their partners.

The bold move, dubbed the “421 Food Delivery Incident” by netizens, ignited widespread online debate.

 
“Underdog” JD vs. Meituan: The Start of a New Delivery War
 

JD.com is a household name in China’s e-commerce industry, best known for its electronics retail business. In recent years, it has expanded into fresh groceries, online supermarkets, and instant delivery services. Meanwhile, China’s food delivery market has long been dominated by Meituan (美团) and Ele.me (饿了么), the latter owned by Alibaba. Before a recent online controversy brought attention to it, many people weren’t even aware that JD had entered the food delivery space.

JD’s entry into China’s thriving food delivery market hasn’t been too long ago—the company officially only announced its JD Waimai (京东外卖) food delivery service back in February this year.

Before JD, other major tech companies like Tencent, Baidu, and ByteDance had all tried (and failed) to challenge the dominance of Meituan and Ele.me. But JD has a strong advantage: a massive logistics system with over 300,000 (!) delivery staff. Its Dada (达达) on-demand delivery and local logistics platform also has nearly 1.3 million active couriers, making JD a serious new competitor in China’s food delivery market. Not surprisingly, JD has already started hiring away talent from Meituan.

Amid JD’s growing presence, a post surfaced in April, reportedly from Meituan executive Wang Puzhong (王莆中), mocking JD’s food delivery ambitions as laughable. He used harsh language, calling JD a “cornered dog” making a desperate move (狗急跳墙). Then, on April 15, Meituan’s Flash Delivery service (美团闪送) released a video teasing JD’s supposedly slow delivery speeds (#美团闪购疑似嘲讽京东#). The video showed a dog with the caption: “Your Dongdong is still on the way” — a direct jab at JD, whose mascot is a dog and whose founder, Richard Liu (Liu Qiangdong), is nicknamed “Dongdong.”

JD swiftly hit back. On April 16, a video from an internal JD meeting was leaked, widely seen as a deliberate PR move. In the video, JD founder Richard Liu criticized the food delivery industry, claiming platforms were making excessive profits while restaurants struggled to survive. “Running a restaurant is already hard, yet platforms—just middlemen—are making a fortune,” he said. Liu added that JD would cap its profit margin at 5% and offer full social insurance to its full-time couriers—setting the tone for the official statement that followed.

Then came JD’s April 21 post, which launched a series of serious accusations against Meituan. JD claimed that Meituan had long restricted part-time couriers from working with other platforms and had failed to provide any social insurance to its full-time riders for over ten years. It also criticized Meituan’s working conditions, accusing the company of exploiting riders through algorithm-driven pressure while ignoring their safety. Additionally, JD accused Meituan of squeezing restaurants for profit, turning a blind eye to unhygienic “ghost kitchens,” and neglecting basic food safety standards. The tone of the post was sharply critical.

The attack prompted Meituan to respond publicly. That same evening, it issued a statement on its official WeChat account, denying that it had ever restricted riders from working with other platforms. Meituan also pushed back by accusing JD of mistreating its own couriers, pointing to heavy fines and unfair internal policies as the real issue.

However, Meituan’s response did little to improve its public image. On Weibo and short-video platforms, public sentiment largely turned against Meituan. That night, a netizen posted that JD CEO Richard Liu himself had delivered their JD order. Stories of Liu chatting with riders and restaurant owners quickly went viral, reinforcing his image as a down-to-earth, working-class hero—and earning JD another wave of goodwill.

At the moment, JD enjoys strong public support—not necessarily because it’s doing everything perfectly, but because it has timed its entry well, casting itself as the underdog taking on Meituan, the widely criticized corporate giant.

 
The Meituan Backlash
 

There’s no doubt that Meituan is a true giant. In 2024, the company generated a staggering RMB 300 billion (about $41 billion) in revenue. But this delivery empire has long faced ethical criticism—and JD’s recent accusations on Weibo highlight issues that many in the industry have raised before.

Meituan’s commission rates for restaurants are notoriously high, typically ranging from 15% to 25%. According to reports, around 60% of restaurants on the platform operate at a loss—even as Meituan continues to post multi-billion-yuan profits year after year. Many restaurant owners have voiced their frustration online, saying Meituan initially attracted them with generous onboarding incentives, only to gradually increase commissions, service fees, and so-called “tech support charges.” In the end, even strong sales often fail to translate into real profit. Yet with fierce competition and Meituan’s dominance in the food delivery market, many restaurants feel they have no choice but to stay.

For workers, complaints from Meituan couriers are nothing new. The faster they deliver, the more the algorithm shortens their future delivery windows, while slower deliveries result in fewer order assignments. This creates a vicious cycle, pressuring riders to break traffic rules just to meet deadlines. Unsurprisingly, their accident rate is reported to be three times higher than that of express couriers. To make matters worse, Meituan has historically provided no social insurance—neither for full-time nor part-time riders—leaving them on their own when accidents happen. As some couriers bitterly joke, “We’re not people—we’re just human batteries.”

For consumers, the concerns are just as serious. As I noted in an earlier article, Meituan’s platform increasingly hosts “ghost kitchens”—delivery-only outlets that often operate in unsanitary conditions, producing low-cost, low-quality meals to support Meituan’s Pinhaofan service and fuel ongoing price wars. It’s hard to believe Meituan isn’t aware of these practices; it simply appears to look the other way.

These examples are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Meituan’s ethical challenges. But for many users, they’re reason enough to delete the app—especially now that JD has positioned itself as a credible alternative.

Of course, few believe Richard Liu is driven purely by social responsibility—he’s long been skilled at presenting himself as a “man of the people.” In JD’s early days, he famously delivered electronics himself in a three-wheeler. Still, as many netizens have put it: “Judge by actions, not intentions” (君子论迹不论心). Whatever JD’s true motives, its current words and actions seem to align with the interests of ordinary consumers and workers. But the question remains: is that enough?

 
Different name, same game?
 

For many consumers, the showdown between JD and Meituan has been surprisingly entertaining, and even financially rewarding. The more intense the rivalry, the bigger the discounts. Netizens have been sharing screenshots of good deals they’ve scored from both platforms in recent days. Some media outlets have even declared, “Richard Liu is saving food delivery and changing the industry for good!”

Meanwhile, Taobao and Ele.me have also announced that they’ll be joining the big JD–Meituan showdown by making themselves more competitive. “Taobao Flash Delivery” (淘宝闪购) will now be prominently featured on the main Taobao app, and Taobao and Ele.me will be more closely integrated under Alibaba to offer customers faster delivery times and the best prices. That means more offers—and good news for consumers.

Taobao and Ele.me also join the big battle

But offline, couriers are responding more cautiously. Rider welfare has quickly become a key issue in this corporate battle—and may even become a way for platforms to stand out in a crowded market. But big promises aren’t enough. Only real, visible improvements will earn riders’ trust.

Courier A Ping (阿平) has long been sharing food delivery vlogs online. He used to work for both Meituan and Ele.me. Since April 16, he’s started posting about JD’s delivery platform, and has raised many concerns: part-time riders apparently find it hard to get orders, the system is difficult to navigate, the dispatch logic is flawed, and the navigation is poor.

In the comments section, other couriers are joining the discussion, with many agreeing that JD’s current system only works for full-time employees. “If full-timers get the full benefits, insurance and everything, then it;s probably not that easy to become one,” one wrote. “JD looks promising now, with high pay and benefits, but give it time—it’ll end up the same as the others.”

Another rider, Yu (小于) isn’t too excited about the JD-Meituan feud either. “JD’s fine system is super strict,” he said. “At the end of the day, all these platforms are the same.” Whether JD is just using this moment for PR or genuinely stepping up to take on more social responsibility—only time will tell.

By Ruixin Zhang

Follow @whatsonweibo

Independently covering digital China for over a decade. Like what we do? Support us and get the story behind the hashtag by subscribing:

Subscribe

edited for clarity by Manya Koetse

Spotted a mistake or want to add something? Please let us know in comments below or email us. First-time commenters, please be patient – we will have to manually approve your comment before it appears.

©2024 Whatsonweibo. All rights reserved. Do not reproduce our content without permission – you can contact us at info@whatsonweibo.com.

Here’s the latest roundup of the three top trends and most noteworthy discussions on Chinese social media this week.

The popular Chinese franchise Yang’s Braised Chicken Rice (杨铭宇黄焖鸡米饭) is at the center of attention this week—for all the wrong reasons. The company, which opened its first restaurant in 2011 and has since franchised more than 2500 locations across China, was exposed by Beijing News for reusing expired ingredients and reselling leftover food in at least three of its restaurants in Zhengzhou and Shangqiu (Henan). Cooks were smoking in the kitchen and even going as far as dyeing spoiled, darkened beef with food coloring to make it appear fresh.

The issue has sparked widespread concern on Chinese social media—not only because Yang’s Braised Chicken Rice is a well-known restaurant chain, but also because food safety and kitchen hygiene remain ongoing concerns in China. The timing of this news is particularly significant, as it was published in the lead-up to March 15—China’s National Consumer Rights Day, an annual event that highlights consumer protection issues.

China’s State Council Food Safety Commission Office has now ordered authorities in Henan and Shandong, where Yang’s Braised Chicken is headquartered, to thoroughly investigate the case. The affected stores will reportedly be closed permanently, but the impact extends far beyond these locations—most netizens discussing the scandal have made it clear they won’t be ordering from Yang’s Braised Chicken Rice anytime soon.

Can the company win back consumer trust? Even though general management has been apologizing and pledged to personally oversee kitchen standards, this is not the first time the company is in hot water. In 2024, a customer in Chengdu allegedly ordered Yang’s Braised Chicken Rice via takeout and discovered a fully cooked dead rat in their meal (picture here not for the faint of heart).

While tough language on Taiwan was already trending last week during China’s Two Sessions, another wave of discussions on Taiwan has emerged this week. This follows a high-level national security meeting held on Thursday by Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te (赖清德), after which he addressed the media and proposed more aggressive strategies to counter Beijing’s so-called ‘united front’ efforts within Taiwan.

On Friday, Beijing responded with stern remarks. Chen Binhua (陈斌华), spokesperson for the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council, called Lai Ching-te a “destroyer of cross-strait peace” (“两岸和平破坏者”) and a “creator of crises in the Taiwan Strait” (“台海危机制造者”) who is “pushing Taiwan towards the dangerous situation of war” (“把台湾推向兵凶战危险境”).

Chen also reiterated Beijing’s stance that reunification with Taiwan is inevitable. This message was further amplified on Chinese social media platforms such as Weibo and Douyin through the hashtag “Inevitable Reunification with the Motherland” (#祖国必然统一#).

Last week, on March 6, a peculiar news item went viral on Chinese social media, and I tweeted out the viral video here. The footage shows a young man standing on a table in a private dining room at a Haidilao restaurant, seemingly urinating into the hotpot. The incident was later confirmed to have taken place at the popular chain’s Bund location in Shanghai on the night of February 24.

Just when you thought the world couldn’t get any crazier… someone stands up and pisses in the Haidilao hotpot. Blasphemy! Hotpot treason!

Anyway, Haidilao reported the guy to the police, and I’m pretty sure he won’t be welcome back anytime soon. pic.twitter.com/3ytLhGdYjX

— Manya Koetse (@manyapan) March 6, 2025

Honestly, the video seemed staged (the “pee” looked more like water), but understandably, Haidilao was very pissed about the negative impact on its reputation. In case you’re not familiar: Haidilao is one of China’s most popular hotpot chains, known for its excellent service and food quality (read here).

The company immediately launched an investigation into the video’s origins and reported the two men—the one urinating and the one filming—to the police.

This week, the incident gained even more traction (even the BBC covered it) after it was revealed that Haidilao had reimbursed 4,109 customers who dined at the restaurant between February 24, when the incident occurred, and March 8, when all tableware was discarded and the entire restaurant was disinfected.

Not only did Haidilao reimburse customers, but they also compensated them tenfold.

This compensation strategy sparked all kinds of discussions on Chinese social media. While many agreed with Haidilao’s solution to prevent a marketing crisis, some customers and netizens raised ethical questions, such as:

💰If you paid for your meal with coupons and only spent a couple of cents in cash, is it fair that some customers only received 9 RMB ($1.25) in compensation?
💰If you paid for an entire group of friends, meaning you originally spent around $140 on a meal but now received $1,400 in reimbursement, should you split the compensation with your friends?
💰How should cases be handled where a third party made the reservation and ends up claiming part of the compensation?

By now, the incident has become about much more than just pissing in soup.

By Manya Koetse

(follow on X, LinkedIn, or Instagram)

Spotted a mistake or want to add something? Please let us know in comments below or email us. First-time commenters, please be patient – we will have to manually approve your comment before it appears.

©2025 Whatsonweibo. All rights reserved. Do not reproduce our content without permission – you can contact us at info@whatsonweibo.com.

Follow What’s on Weibo on