AI training scams targeting young consumers with fake courses and predatory lending
Training companies in China marketed fake AI courses with promises of high earnings to young consumers, using predatory lending and misleading contracts with hidden penalties. Regulators documented thousands of complaints in 2025, with Beijing and Sichuan authorities taking enforcement action and ordering refunds.
What happened
Training companies marketed AI courses with false promises of high earnings ("zero foundation, monthly income over 10,000 yuan") using deceptive screenshots, fabricated success stories, and courses claimed to be live-taught but were actually low-quality recordings.
Operators used predatory lending tactics, offering installment payment plans that concealed high default penalties in contract fine print; students discovered they could only recover 10% of fees despite promises of full refunds.
In September 2025, Beijing Municipal Market Supervision and Management Bureau found one company used free AI training and "monthly income over 10,000" ads to attract customers, with sham live courses that were actually recordings with no real teachers; the company pressured students into higher-priced courses and defrauded over 1,000 consumers of more than 1 million yuan, eventually ordered to refund 1.34 million yuan.
In 2025, Sichuan Neijiang Consumer Council received over 100 complaints with identical scenarios; Sichuan Consumer Protection Committee recorded 3,739 AI training-related complaints for 2025, a 2.21% increase year-on-year.
Reported impact
Young consumers, particularly cash-strapped university students seeking economic independence, were deliberately targeted and suffered financial losses through high-priced courses they could not access refunds for.
Victims faced compounding harm: tuition payments were lost and they still owed installment loans, leaving them "two empty-handed and in debt."
Index analysis
The scam formed a complete "leek-harvesting" industry chain with standardized operations: free or low-price trial courses for lead generation, fabricated student earnings screenshots to build trust, manufactured urgency via "last promotion slot" messaging, and sham live-teaching with deceptive contracts.
Operators used layered shell companies to evade accountability—selling courses through Company A while lending through Company B, then disappearing after registration cancellation, leaving consumer grievances without recourse.
Governance controls
Neijiang police, network information and public security bureaus jointly investigated, resolving over 100 complaints in batch and recovering over 400,000 yuan in losses.
Chinese Consumer Association reported that education and training service complaints grew over 40% year-on-year in the first half of 2025, with training-backed lending becoming a focal point of harm.
Classification
Sources and evidence
This record was researched and written by the Index, based on the following original reporting.