Fraudulent practices involving electronic price-computing scales have a long history; such cheating emerged alongside the widespread adoption of these scales in China, clinging to the devices like a virus. The practice has now evolved into its most sophisticated form—software-based fraud—creating a scenario where the "devil" seems to constantly outpace the "priest." This type of software fraud is undoubtedly engineered by professional programmers who deeply understand the inner workings of these scales. Such technicians are rare and highly valuable within the industry and manufacturing sector; however, their personal values became warped by selfishness. They were recruited by unscrupulous merchants—driven by the same greed and a desire to illegally profit at others' expense—to create scales capable of fraud, resulting in these devices capturing a significant share of the market. Detecting this fraud, severing the ties to the perpetrators behind it, and completely dismantling the entire chain of production, sales, and usage is a shared goal for market regulators and manufacturers alike. Drawing on a four-dimensional management framework—managing results, processes, capabilities, and learning—this article proposes a results-oriented management approach for discussion with industry colleagues.
1. Analysis of Fraudulent Practices
(1) Fraud is difficult to detect
Modern software-based fraud is quick and simple to execute, requiring only the press of a few numeric keys or a remote control. Powering the scale off and on again, or pressing a specific control key, clears the fraudulent state and exits the program; consequently, consumers rarely notice, professional regulators struggle to monitor the situation, and it is virtually impossible to decipher the fraud-activation codes on-site. The lack of effective supervision and testing methods has led to a proliferation of these fraudulent scales, a trend that continues to worsen.
(2) Fraudulent weighing results are difficult to trace
Unscrupulous merchants exploit the cultural tendency—particularly among young people—to be concerned with "saving face" (avoiding embarrassment). They size up customers and tailor their fraudulent weighing tactics accordingly. The value involved in such fraudulent practices typically ranges from 5% to 10% of the goods' value, reaching as high as 15% to 20% in severe cases. The method often depends on the buyer and the type of goods; for instance, with live fish or poultry, free slaughtering services offered after purchase prevent the buyer from knowing the goods' true weight. Meanwhile, some young people purchase vegetables and fruits without asking for the unit price—rationalizing this as simply "following the market rate"—and are far less resistant to common forms of cheating or short-weighting; they rarely pay attention to the weighing results, making these transactions prime targets for such fraud.
(3) Lack of a tangible record of weighing results
A common pattern in daily weighing operations is that fraudulent practices tend to occur with itinerant vendors or in markets with lax management, whereas cheating is less likely in large and medium-sized supermarkets. This is because, in the latter settings, the weighing results are made available to the buyer. In typical medium-sized supermarkets, goods are weighed in the shopping area, a receipt showing the weighing result is printed, and the item is then scanned for payment at the exit. Through this process, the buyer implicitly gains access to the weighing result, unit price, and total cost via the price label on the shopping bag. This provides evidence for verification, allowing the facts to determine whether short-weighting has occurred.
2
Requirements for printing under the GB/T 7722-2020 national standard
(1) Printing of weighing results constitutes a type of indicating device
In the GB/T 7722-2020 standard *Electronic Bench/Counter Scales*, Definition 3.16 defines a "multiple indicating device" as follows: "A weighing instrument may have multiple devices for displaying weighing results for a given load. Note: Such indicating devices may include digital indicators, printers, display screens, etc." Therefore, printed output holds a technical status of equal importance to digital display. The standard contains numerous provisions regarding printouts, including requirements that printing must occur only when the digital reading is stable and that the printed content must include the unit price, total weight, and payment amount. The payment amount must be calculated as the product of the unit price and the displayed weight, with the result rounded according to standard rounding rules. Parameters such as character height and the labeling of net weight and tare weight within the printout can be perfectly executed and presented to the customer using the micro-printer integrated into the electronic price-computing scale.
(2) Requirement to print weighing results when an accumulation function is used
The standard GB/T 7722-2020, "Electronic Table/Bench Scales," references "printing" requirements in over 40 instances. Section 6.8.10.3 ("Accumulation") stipulates: "The scale may accumulate transaction records from one or more tickets. The total price may be displayed on the payment amount indicator and printed—accompanied by a specific label or symbol—on the final line of the payment column, or on a separate label or ticket. Such separate labels or tickets must show the accumulated payment amount and appropriate product reference symbols. All accumulated payment amounts must be printable, and the total price must equal the algebraic sum of all these printed prices." Under this requirement, any purchase involving the accumulation of weighing results for goods necessitates a printout that is submitted to the buyer along with the goods. Consequently, this is also a form of fraud that unscrupulous merchants can easily exploit.
(3) GB/T 7722-2020 requirements regarding printer configuration
Electronic price-computing scales typically feature a relatively simple structure, with a micro-printer being the standard configuration. However, while the national standard for "Electronic Table/Bench Scales" mandates the display of weighing results, the inclusion of a printer capable of outputting these results is optional rather than mandatory. As a result, the phrase "during display or printing" appears frequently in GB/T 7722-2020, effectively treating printing requirements as secondary or optional. 3 Printing weighing results—an effective, simple method to prevent fraud
(1) Printing weighing results provides physical evidence of fraud and a basis for traceability. The label details allow for the verification of purchased goods and confrontation with unscrupulous merchants if fraud is detected, thereby facilitating the supervision and management of farmers' markets.
(2) Printing results serves as a form of result management. It effectively strips the appeal from fraudulent tactics—such as breaking seals to install cheating devices, swapping the scale's motherboard or chips, or altering legal metrological parameters—thereby creating an intangible deterrent.
(3) There is no longer a need to debate whether a fraudulent price-computing scale was manufactured by a specific company or modified by a rogue technician. If the printed result is incorrect, no explanation can justify it.
4
Is it easy to equip price-computing scales with printers?
Equipping price-computing scales with label printers is a mature, long-established technology with reliable product quality. Printers can be either embedded units within the scale or external receipt printers. Currently, the printouts from scales used in supermarkets typically include the product name, QR code, weight, unit price, total price (in Yuan), date, time, and merchant details. This far exceeds the requirements of the GB/T 7722-2020 standard (*Electronic Bench/Counter Scales*), which mandates only weight, unit price, and total price; the additional features are designed entirely for the convenience of merchant operations and management. Some financially robust manufacturers even design their own custom print layouts and paper, showcasing their economic strength and commitment to honest business practices. Therefore, requiring electronic price-computing scales to include a printing function presents no technical difficulty and offers an effective, convenient, and simple management solution.
5
Conclusion
Electronic price-computing scales were introduced to China in the early 1990s; the initial product design featured a display screen mounted on a pole, known as the "208" model. Later, in response to market demand, the display screens were updated to the currently popular flat-panel style; to ensure fairness in transactions, a dual-display design (front and back) was adopted so that both the buyer and seller could view the information. Given the emergence of software-based cheating methods involving keyboard manipulation, designing and manufacturing an electronic price-computing scale that requires both a display and a printing function serves as an effective management measure to prevent fraud. A more advanced design approach involves a "scale-locking" function: if the printer runs out of paper or fails to operate after weighing, the scale becomes inoperable, preventing any subsequent transactions. From a cost perspective, this is a software-controlled feature that does not increase hardware costs. Furthermore, while adding a micro-printer incurs a slight cost increase, the expense of label paper is minimal; moreover, the mandatory printed output allows for the removal of one of the dual displays, resulting in a net cost reduction.
AI-enabled electronic price-computing scales currently on the market utilize existing video recognition technology to directly display the item name, unit price, total weight, and total cost. In my view, this is an excellent design; it solves the difficulty of looking up codes for infrequently sold items when handling a wide variety of goods, thereby improving weighing efficiency and reducing labor costs. However, the retail price of these AI scales ranges from several times to ten times that of standard electronic price-computing scales. It is worth noting that most AI scales feature a single-sided display and are typically positioned against a wall so that both buyer and seller can see the screen—a clear indication that the market has made a rational choice regarding the product.
2
Many large and medium-sized cities in China feature numerous residential complexes containing small supermarkets. Unfortunately, some unscrupulous merchants engage in cheating—specifically by failing to print out the weighing results during transactions. Furthermore, when a customer purchases a variety of vegetables and fruits, the merchant may configure the system to weigh the items and calculate the total price at the checkout counter rather than weighing and labeling them in the shopping area. In such cases, the merchant tallies the value of the goods and charges the customer the final total without printing a receipt—often by failing to load printer paper or by removing the printer entirely. This type of fraudulent practice has increasingly come to light alongside urban development and shows a trend of becoming more widespread.
Honesty, integrity, fair dealing, and treating all customers fairly are principles that sellers must uphold; market fraud stems from unscrupulous merchants who are driven solely by profit and greed, forsaking ethical standards for gain. The outcome of such fraud—reducing the actual recorded weight of the goods—exploits the buyer's lack of awareness regarding the true weighing result. Therefore, adopting a "results-oriented" management approach, designing and manufacturing electronic price-computing scales that are required to print the weighing result alongside the visual display offers a simple method to prevent such fraud.
This paper proposes a product improvement method aimed at preventing fraud related to weighing results in electronic price-computing scales. However, the effectiveness of this measure in curbing fraud relies heavily on the strong support of scale manufacturers and market regulatory authorities.