Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the growing issue of "empty return fees" in the ride-hailing market, emphasizing the need for regulatory measures to prohibit such fees and impose penalties on violators [1][15]. Group 1: Current Market Situation - In Shenzhen, the number of ride-hailing operational violations increased by 73.21% year-on-year, with 55,556 cases reported in the first half of 2025 [2]. - Passengers have filed 53,526 effective complaints, averaging nearly 300 complaints per day, indicating significant dissatisfaction with the current ride-hailing services [2]. - Common complaints include "deliberate detours" and "cross-city empty return fees," which have become frequent issues reported by passengers [2]. Group 2: Driver Experiences - A driver reported that due to declining fares over the past two years, requesting empty return fees has become a common "unwritten rule" in the industry [6]. - The average daily order completion per vehicle in Shenzhen increased from 11.82 to 12.69 orders, with the average daily order amount rising from 449.16 to 456.67 yuan [6]. - Drivers often justify requesting empty return fees by citing the high commission rates charged by platforms, which they claim reduce their overall income [6]. Group 3: Passenger Experiences - Passengers have reported being asked for additional empty return fees, leading to significant discrepancies between estimated and actual fares, with one instance resulting in a fare of 315 yuan instead of the expected amount [9][10]. - A passenger expressed frustration over the lack of transparency and the inability to report or contest these additional fees effectively [10]. - The practice of requesting empty return fees has reportedly increased significantly this year, with passengers feeling pressured to comply due to safety concerns [10]. Group 4: Platform Policies - The article discusses how platforms like Didi have implemented policies allowing drivers to negotiate return fees, which has led to confusion and dissatisfaction among passengers [11]. - A passenger noted that the platform's policy effectively allows for double charging, as the fare already includes long-distance fees [11]. - Legal experts argue that while the collection of empty return fees may be legal under current regulations, it is inherently unreasonable and leads to exploitation of passengers [13]. Group 5: Recommendations for Improvement - Legal experts recommend that regulatory bodies should establish policies to ban empty return fees and impose penalties for violations [15]. - Platforms are urged to take responsibility for pricing and improve the prioritization of return orders to mitigate income loss for drivers without burdening passengers [15]. - The article emphasizes the need for platforms to manage the situation better to prevent escalating conflicts between drivers and passengers [15].

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the growing issue of discrepancies between estimated and actual fares in the ride-hailing market, particularly focusing on the controversial practice of drivers requesting "return empty fees" for cross-city rides, which has become a common yet problematic phenomenon in the industry [1][10]. Group 1: Market Conditions - In the first half of 2025, Shenzhen's transportation authority reported 556 violations related to ride-hailing operations, a 73.21% increase from the previous year, alongside 53,526 valid passenger complaints, averaging nearly 300 per day [1]. - The average daily order completion per vehicle in Shenzhen increased from 11.82 to 12.69 orders, with 57,111 vehicles completing at least 10 orders daily, up from 48,402 [3]. Group 2: Driver Practices - Drivers are increasingly requesting additional fees for cross-city rides, citing low income due to high platform commissions and the prevalence of order transfers between platforms [3][10]. - A driver reported that the practice of requesting return empty fees has become a "hidden rule" in the industry, reflecting the financial pressures faced by drivers [3]. Group 3: Passenger Experiences - Passengers have reported being pressured to pay return empty fees, with some agreeing to additional charges out of safety concerns during late-night rides [6][7]. - A passenger experienced a significant fare increase due to a driver deviating from the planned route after refusing to pay a return empty fee, resulting in a final fare of 315 yuan instead of the estimated amount [6][4]. Group 4: Platform Responses - Ride-hailing platforms like Meituan and Didi have stated that they do not permit drivers to request return empty fees, labeling such actions as deceptive [5][9]. - Didi's customer service confirmed that while drivers can negotiate return fees, the amount should not exceed the actual highway tolls incurred, which has raised concerns about the fairness and transparency of this practice [9]. Group 5: Legal and Regulatory Perspectives - Legal experts indicate that while the collection of return empty fees may be legally permissible under current regulations, it is deemed unreasonable due to the lack of standardized pricing and the potential for exploitation of passengers [10][11]. - Recommendations include the need for regulatory bodies to prohibit the collection of return empty fees and for platforms to take responsibility for managing driver compensation more effectively [11].