A businessman from Zhuji, Shaoxing, recently shared his experience of attending an offline seminar for cross-border e-commerce. After paying the fee and signing the agreement, he says he discovered a significant discrepancy between the promotional promises and the actual contract terms.

Mr. Wang, who runs a sock business in Zhuji and also engages in cross-border e-commerce, recounted that in early September he received an invitation to attend an offline seminar promoting the "JD.com" global sales initiative. During the entire presentation, the branding and messaging were exclusively tied to the JD.com name. All signage, including KT boards and every slide in the PowerPoint, prominently featured JD.com's branding. The speaker emphasized that the program was solely focused on JD.com's global sales business.

Impressed by the presentation, Mr. Wang paid 36,800 yuan and signed a service agreement for global sales merchants. The contract listed Mr. Wang as Party A and a company called Hangzhou Jingdian Technology Co., Ltd. as Party B. However, upon returning to his office and carefully reviewing the document, Mr. Wang began to feel uneasy. He noted that the contract makes no reference whatsoever to JD.com or its global sales operations. In his view, the marketing pitch and the signed contract are seriously misaligned. According to the terms, besides helping set up an online store, the company also promises to handle operations on his behalf. When asked whether the store would be listed on JD.com's global sales platform, Mr. Wang expressed uncertainty, as the services had not yet been initiated.

Seeking a resolution, Mr. Wang asked for a refund and had previously tried to negotiate. He recounted that the other party offered to return only a portion of the money while requiring him to pay a penalty. Mr. Wang objected, pointing out that he had not breached any terms; rather, the company's promotional claims and the contract were inconsistent.

On site, Mr. Wang called JD.com's customer service hotline to verify whether Jingdian Technology is affiliated with JD.com. The customer service representative confirmed that they could not find any connection. When Mr. Wang asked about the cost and requirements for joining the platform, the representative said there is no fee to join. Furthermore, the representative stated that JD.com has not authorized any third-party companies to conduct offline recruitment, emphasizing that businesses should register independently.

Mr. Wang then reached out to a person surnamed Mo, who was introduced as the market operations manager for Hangzhou Jingdian Technology Co., Ltd. Mr. Mo described his company as a service provider for JD.com. When asked about authorization documents, Mr. Mo claimed they had them but refused to provide them to the media, stating that journalists are not regulatory bodies. He also declined to share the documents with Mr. Wang, asserting that they had already been shown to him during their initial meeting—a claim Mr. Wang firmly denied.

Mr. Mo explained the absence of JD.com's global sales wording in the contract by stating that it is still under review. Once the review is complete, Mr. Wang would be required to sign a second contract directly with JD.com. He clarified that the first agreement is a general e-commerce cooperation contract, meaning all initial coordination is handled by the service provider. Only after the review is passed and Mr. Wang becomes an official partner would a separate agreement with JD.com be signed.

Mr. Wang rejected this explanation, asserting that the contract is fundamentally inconsistent with the seminar's content, which he believes constitutes fraud and renders the agreement invalid. Mr. Mo challenged him to provide evidence to support his allegations. He asked whether Mr. Wang would continue fulfilling the contract if the company could prove that all its terms and conditions are legal and compliant. Mr. Wang declined to respond immediately. Mr. Mo then suggested they take the matter to court if Mr. Wang believed he had any grounds for fraud or breach of contract, urging him to present the relevant evidence.

JD.com later reported that upon verification, the company has no cooperative relationship with Hangzhou Jingdian Technology Co., Ltd., and it is not one of JD.com's service providers. JD.com also confirmed that no offline recruitment events for its global sales business were held during that period. The platform cautioned merchants and partners to be wary of such schemes to avoid falling victim to fraud, and urged anyone who has already made payments to report the matter to the police immediately. JD.com expressed its willingness to assist authorities in their investigation.