Skip to content
Submit incident
AII-1001-93617
Well documentedThree or more independent publishers report the core facts.Supporting sources are pending verification.

Blind Man Denied Phone Card Over Mandatory Facial Recognition

An 80-year-old blind man in Yangzhou, China was unable to register a mobile phone card because he could not complete mandatory facial recognition requiring him to open his eyes, which he cannot do due to congenital eye deformity. The operator's rigid enforcement of the system with no documented alternatives for customers with disabilities denied him independent access to basic services, forcing him to register the card under his son-in-law's name.

4 May 2025 · Mobile phone operator (Yangzhou, China) · Discrimination and fairness
4 May 2025
AII-1001-93617
Quick facts
Category
Discrimination and fairness
Country
China
Date
4 May 2025
Drafted by
Raidu Incident Detection

What happened

On May 4, 2025, an 80-year-old man without eyeballs in Yangzhou, Jiangsu Province, China attempted to activate a mobile phone card at an operator's business hall. He was unable to complete the mandatory facial recognition verification which required him to open his eyes, as he has been blind since infancy due to eye deformity and missing eyeballs.

Unable to complete the facial recognition step, the customer was forced to have his son-in-law complete the registration instead and then transfer the phone card to him. The operator's staff stated that facial recognition is a mandatory program designed to prevent fraud and theft of newly activated phone cards.

When questioned about alternative verification methods for customers with special needs, the operator's staff stated they were unaware of other verification channels. However, reporting found that other branches of the same operator had more flexible procedures, such as accepting a disability certificate with photo documentation without requiring facial recognition.

Reported impact

The incident highlighted how mandatory facial recognition systems without alternative verification methods effectively deny basic telecommunications services to people with certain disabilities. The customer was denied the right to register a phone card in his own name.

The case sparked public discussion about technology's failure to accommodate vulnerable groups during digital transformation. Commentary noted that this constitutes discrimination and creates barriers to social participation for people with disabilities.

Index analysis

The facial recognition system was designed with a 'one-size-fits-all' technical requirement that did not account for individuals unable to open their eyes. The lack of system flexibility or alternative authentication pathways created an insurmountable barrier for this customer despite his presentation of valid identification documents.

The inconsistency across different branches of the same operator—some offering document-based alternatives while others rigidly enforcing facial recognition—demonstrates inadequate implementation of inclusive design principles and lack of standardized protocols for serving customers with disabilities.

Governance controls

The operator lacked a tiered authentication system or documented procedures for customers who cannot complete facial recognition due to disability. Staff were unaware of alternative verification methods even when they existed at other branches.

China's Accessibility Environment Building Law (2023) and the upcoming Facial Recognition Technology Application Safety Management Rules are intended to protect equal access for people with disabilities, but the operator had not operationalized these requirements in its branch procedures.

Classification

Category
Discrimination and fairness
Industry
Healthcare, drugs and biotechnology
Country
China
Harm status
Actual harm
Intent
Unintentional
Timing
Post-deployment
Harm types
Human or fundamental rights
Harmed
Consumers
Failure modes
Overreliance
AI systems
facial recognition system

Sources and evidence

Sources not yet published

This record was researched and written by the Index from original reporting. Its sources are still being verified by an editor, and they are listed here once that check is complete. Until then the record carries no reviewer.

How sources are verifiedSuggest a source for this incident