"I was so focused on scanning the QR code and going through the process to get the cat, I didn't even notice that I had to pay installments!" said Xiao Ming, a student at a university in Hefei, Anhui, recalling his previous experience of "adopting" a kitten free. He had intended to "adopt" the cat for free but unexpectedly ended up with a 24-month installment debt, paying 398 yuan each for cat supplies. Over half a year later, Xiao Ming did the math and realized that by the time he finally settled the debt, the total cost would exceed 9500 yuan, far exceeding the actual value of purchasing the cat.

Nowadays, more and more young people in cities and empty nesters choose to keep pets as companions, and the role of pets as support and life partners is becoming increasingly prominent. The "it economy" centered around pets, including production, consumption, and services, is growing larger and larger. The "205 White Paper on China's Pet Industry (Consumption Report)" shows that in 2024, the consumer market size of urban (dog and cat) increased by7.5% to reach 300.2 billion yuan. With the "pet economy" heating up, offline stores are constantly introducing new business models in order to a foothold in the fierce market competition. "Free adoption" is one of them. However, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Behind the "free adoption lies many traps such as long-term repeat purchases, installment payments, high-priced pet supplies, and continuing to repay even after the pet has passed away.
Deal use the guise of "public welfare adoption" to attract customers with lively and lovely pets in transparent display cases. When consumers express their intention to adopt, the salesperson will introducepet food security plans" and "worry-free pet parenting plans" and other installment plans, breaking down the cost of pet supplies into 24 or 36 install. The money is used to purchase supplies for raising pets on the merchant's small program "mall". This mode of payment on a monthly basis is also known as "pet". Some merchants even link payments to credit checks, threatening consumers that if they stop paying halfway, it will affect their credit records.
The black cat complaint platform shows that there are more than a thousand appeals for the sole removal of "cat loans," exposing universality and harmfulness of this model. This marketing model essentially dissects pet transactions into a composite contract of "pet giveaway   product sales." Although it is nominally, consumers need to continue paying for supplies, which essentially constitutes a sales relationship. Businesses avoid the regulatory requirements of the Animal Epidemic Prevention Law for pet transactions through this design while converting consumer disputes into contract performance disputes. Consumers, based on their trust in "public welfare adoption," often sign agreements without fully understanding the contract terms. Businesses, the other hand, use standard terms to exempt themselves from liability, such as stipulating that payments must still be made after the pet's death, or limiting the purchase of supplies only to their app. This unequal contractual relationship traps consumers in a "adoption means debt" dilemma.
Faced with this new type of consumer trap, a "vention-regulation-relief" full-chain governance mechanism is needed. Regulatory authorities should clarify the legal attributes of "pet adoption," and include bundled sales behavior in scope of regulations such as the "Unfair Competition Law" and the "Consumer Rights and Interests Protection Law." It is suggested to implement a "registration system for agreements," requiring businesses to clearly indicate the source of pets, their health status, and the terms of consumption, to protect consumers' right to know.
Consumers themselves need to enhance their risk prevention awareness and rationally view "free" publicity. Before adoption, they should verify the qualifications of businesses, carefully review the contract terms, pay special attention installment payments, liability for breach of contract, etc., and keep communication records. Once any breach of contract is found, they should promptly complain to the Consumer Association or Market Superv Department. For consumers who have already fallen into disputes, they can claim to cancel the contract based on the provisions of Article 151 of the "Civil Code" on unfairness.
The "free adoption" model, which should be a combination of public welfare and goodwill, has been distorted into a consumer trap due to the profitseeking behavior of some businesses. The advocacy of civilized pet-keeping as a public welfare concept has become a marketing strategy with many tricks, which not only damages consumer rights and, but also depletes social trust. Only by building an integrated governance system of legal supervision, industry self-discipline, and consumer rationality can we prevent love from being and let public welfare return to its essence. When every pet can find a real loving owner, and every good intention is not wasted, the pet economy can achieve healthy and sustainable development