Perhaps you’ve never heard of “peach networks.” But this term, which refers to shadowy dating apps allegedly facilitating illegal prostitution, trended briefly in China late last month when the country’s state broadcaster ran a consumer investigation of what it characterized as a growing phenomenon — dating apps that cross the line into sexual exploitation.
The phrase “peach networks,” or taose shejiao (桃色社交), first appeared on April 20, featured in an episode of “Finance Investigation” (财经调查), a program released on China Central Television in March 2024 that runs documentary-style investigations into consumer issues, business misconduct, and market violations. Such soft targets — not dealing, at least directly, with government negligence or corruption — fall into a shrinking area of permitted coverage in a media industry that has been heavily restrained over the past decade.
In this case, the report alleged that apps it referred to as “peach networks” were disguising themselves as legitimate social networking sites while engaging in illegal activities. On some of these platforms, men were permitted to sign up without any identity verification, while women were put through intensive identity checks. Once registered, male users were bombarded with messages from female profiles, and prompted to purchase virtual currency to reply. According to the CCTV program’s investigation, many of the initial interactions for which men spent their credits were in fact with automated chatbots rather than real women, the process engineered to draw chiefly male users deeper into the platform to pay more money.
In the Chinese language, the term “peach-colored,” or taose (桃色), has historically denoted sexual or erotic themes — the peach fruit, owing to its curvy shape and soft pink color, being likened to the human body. When paired with “social networking,” or shejiao (社交), the result is a composite phrase suggesting the apps in question provide sexual services or content, which in China is tightly controlled.
One app singled out for criticism on the CCTV program was “Female Companion” (她伴). As part of the investigation, a CCTV reporter downloaded the app and engaged in a video chat with a female user. The conversation quickly took on a more explicit and sexual tone — which the program cited as evidence that “Female Companion” and platforms like it are being used not just for dating but to facilitate financial transactions for sexual exchanges.
While sexual banter itself isn’t necessarily problematic on dating platforms globally, these apps appear to cross into potentially fraudulent territory. According to project managers interviewed by CCTV, the business model deliberately exploits users through deceptive practices. The program cited profit margins reaching 300 to 3000 percent as evidence of wrongdoing.
Why should such apparently consensual exchanges raise eyebrows?
Under Chinese law, the activities allegedly facilitated by these apps fall into legally prohibited territory. As the original CCTV report made clear, both the Criminal Law and Public Security Administration Punishment Law of the People’s Republic of China explicitly prohibit prostitution, dissemination of obscene materials, organization of obscene audio-visual content or performances, and providing conditions for such activities.
Following the broadcast, several apps mentioned in the investigation, including “Female Companion” and another called “First Love” (初爱), were removed from mobile app stores in China. According to a report from Modern Express (现代快报), however, several others, including “Hello” and “Sound Pair Chat” (音对语聊) remained available on some platforms as of the end of April.
The Beijing News (新京報), a commercial newspaper under the official Beijing Daily that in recent months has itself pursued a number of consumer related investigations, picked up the story, highlighting that these platforms have created fundamentally exploitative gender dynamics: “men must pay for chat privileges while women earn commissions by encouraging spending.” The investigation claimed to reveal a sophisticated ecosystem where women are recruited as “chat specialists,” earning 45 percent or more of men’s spending, creating what one project manager described to the state-run network as a “closed industrial chain” (闭环产业链).
But there is also some hype going on with the CCTV story and the coverage of “peach networks” following it. In fact, the phrase “closed industrial chain” was itself a clue to the fleeting and perhaps slightly oversold nature of the CCTV investigation into online fraud. In recent years, this phrase has become a popular buzzword in Chinese media and government reports, appearing in contexts ranging from mushroom farming and battery recycling to healthcare systems. While it implies a comprehensive understanding of a complex problem through journalistic reporting, in practice such “exposés” often reveal little beyond surface-level observations, and they have more to do with cyclical government actions than with hard-nosed journalism.
In the case of chat apps and sexual content in China, it helps also to step back and see such media revelations in historical context. It was almost exactly 11 years ago that Momo (陌陌), one of the country’s most popular flirty chat apps, was similarly slammed by state media over alleged connections to prostitution. In April 2014, Xinhua published an article titled “Momo becomes a disaster area for sexual transactions.” The article said the app had become a “new mobile base for illegal activities” (新的”移动基地”). Despite this controversy, Momo survived the crackdown, eventually went public on NASDAQ later that year, and later transitioned into a major live-streaming platform.
There is often a cyclical quality to media reports in China like the recent buzz about “peach networks” that speaks also to the ineffectual nature of media supervision — to say nothing of commercial protections. Like “peach networks,” which has already faded since April, these media campaigns are essentially seasonal manifestations of the state’s perennial concern with online decency, colorfully packaged crackdowns that satisfy official agendas without addressing underlying issues.
