Open-Source Large Model Commercialization Fake Authorization SaaS Trap: Forging Filing Qualifications to Defraud Enterprises of Private Deployment Fees

Who Gets Targeted

Technical leaders of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), purchasing directors of IT departments, or owners of traditional enterprises undergoing transformation. They hope to introduce AI capabilities at a low cost but have a vague understanding of the legal boundaries of open-source licenses. Anxious to complete large model algorithm filings to pass app store or regulatory reviews, they fall into the psychological weakness of 'paying money for peace and compliance.' They are easily bluffed by forged authorization letters and filing screenshots stamped with red seals provided by scammers, mistakenly believing they have obtained official endorsement, and ultimately paying high procurement fees while burying themselves in copyright infringement and regulatory violation pitfalls.

骗局怎么运作

• Scammers register technology companies that look official, packaging themselves as 'official authorized agents in China' or 'exclusive enterprise edition publishers' of a well-known open-source AI large model. They place advertisements on major investment attraction websites and industry exhibitions, claiming to provide a full set of SaaS solutions including permanent commercial authorization, localized private deployment, and Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) algorithm filing assistance.
• The team takes free open-source community code for simple rebranding and logo replacement, forges 'Software Copyright Authorization Letters' and 'Open-Source Commercial Edition Distribution Licenses' stamped with red seals, and even self-makes fake manufacturer authorization bronze plaques to cope with enterprise procurement compliance reviews, making victimized enterprises mistakenly believe they have purchased legitimate and compliant genuine commercial software.
• Exploiting enterprises' policy blind spots regarding 'large model filings,' scammers claim that their systems come with official filing qualifications and that enterprises only need to purchase their deployment services to launch directly. They charge high initial deployment fees (usually tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of yuan) and first-year SaaS subscription maintenance fees, creating the illusion of 'spending big money to buy compliance.'
• During the delivery phase, they only provide a set of unoptimized open-source basic code packages and a crude management backend. Technical support is extremely perfunctory, and when enterprises raise deep customization demands, they delay with various excuses, continuing to charge additional fees under the pretext of 'needing to purchase additional computing power expansion packages.'
• When enterprises actually encounter warning letters from copyright owners during operation, or face compliance inspections by the Cyberspace Administration of China and are identified as infringing or unfiled, the scammers have long cancelled the after-sales entity company and transferred the team to a new front, leaving enterprises facing huge infringement compensation and administrative penalties without recourse to accountability.

红旗信号（看到这些快跑）

• 🚩 The seller cannot find corresponding information in the officially disclosed list of authorized agents of the open-source project, and refuses to provide confirmation emails for direct contact with the original manufacturer or officially verifiable authorization codes.
• 🚩 The license document layout is crude, the stamping unit name is inconsistent with the actual receiving company, or even fakes the seal of an overseas open-source foundation on the document, violating common sense regarding the legal entities of open-source organizations.
• 🚩 Promising 'zero-code one-click completion of CAC large model algorithm filings' or claiming that their open-source rebranded product 'already comes with national official filing qualifications,' violating the policy common sense that filings must be applied for independently by the actual operating and using entity.
• 🚩 The contract forcibly bundles a one-time 'buyout authorization' with high 'annual technical maintenance fees,' and the receiving account is a personal account or a frequently changed shell company account, refusing regular corporate bank transfers.
• 🚩 Refusing to sign commercial contracts that explicitly include clauses for 'open-source license defect-free warranties' and 'filing compliance liability breach indemnification,' or saying nothing and shirking responsibility regarding failure liability for infringement in the contract.

真实案例

• In early 2024, a technology company (desensitized: Company A Tech) spent 150,000 yuan to purchase a private deployment system claimed to be the 'enterprise edition' of a well-known foreign open-source large model, and the other party issued exquisite authorization letters and filing vouchers. Later, it was discovered that the official website of the large model issued a statement pointing out that the agent was forged, and the product was actually a free open-source rebranding. The enterprise was forced to re-rectify on its own and faced breach of contract risks.
• In mid-2025, market supervision departments in multiple regions received complaints that a software service provider (desensitized: a digital service provider) charged dozens of traditional SMEs tens of thousands of yuan in 'authorization filing fees' under the guise of handling large model filings and providing genuine commercial authorization, while actually only providing basic code packages downloaded from the open-source community. After the incident, the relevant personnel of the service provider lost contact and dissolved the company.
• In 2024, a large domestic tech forum exposed that a SaaS company claiming to provide 'domestic large model open-source commercial editions' showed customers forged red-headed documents and claimed to have obtained exclusive commercial authorization. In the end, the original author of the open-source community directly called them out on social platforms, exposing the fact that they illegally resold free code and strongly extorted deployment fees from customers to scam them.
• In June 2026, tech media 80aj reported that multiple third-party platforms sold 'low-priced ChatGPT Pro shared accounts,' inducing users to pay under the guise of 'enjoying official $200 member benefits for only 99 yuan per month.' Afterwards, official account risk control was activated, causing shared accounts purchased by a large number of users to frequently drop offline and become unusable. More than 20,000 users were involved, with single scam amounts ranging from tens to thousands of yuan. (Source: [https://www.80aj.com/2026/06/13/chatgpt-scam-warning/](https://www.80aj.com/2026/06/13/chatgpt-scam-warning/))
• In 2026, Hangzhou police summoned the administrator of an AI large model transit station. The transit station operated without qualifications, reselling large model interfaces at low prices to enterprise users. It was eventually forced to shut down and refund users, becoming an industry-focused compliance warning case of unqualified resale. (Source: [https://www.zhujib.com/hangzhou-police-ai-proxy-shutdown-compliance-warning.html](https://www.zhujib.com/hangzhou-police-ai-proxy-shutdown-compliance-warning.html))

Official Stance

• In March 2024, the Cyberspace Administration of China reported and investigated the illegal operation of the website 'www.4stoken.cn' for suspected criminal operation of AI large model API interfaces, reiterating that unauthorized resale of large model interfaces and forgery of commercial qualifications constitute illegal operations and will be severely cracked down on in accordance with the law.
• In 2025, public security economic investigation departments in multiple regions, together with the Cyberspace Administration, released risk tips to issue early warnings against recently high-incidence 'contract fraud cases involving forged AI official authorized merchants,' emphasizing that enterprises introducing open-source models must verify with the original manufacturer and be vigilant against non-official 'exclusive commercial authorization' scams.
• In January 2026, the China Academy of Information and Communications Technology (CAICT), together with multiple parties, released compliance application guidelines for open-source large models, reminding enterprises to be vigilant against commercial fraud traps such as non-official channels offering 'one-time buyout of open-source commercial authorization' and false promises to 'agency handle CAC filings.'

How to Protect Yourself

• ✅ Verify agent qualifications: Before procurement, enterprises should directly visit the official repository or website of the open-source project, review its open-source license instructions, and try to contact the original manufacturer through official publishing channels or email to confirm its domestic agent or distribution identity.
• ✅ Independently complete filings: Conduct algorithm filings and compliance reviews independently through the CAC large model algorithm filing system or by commissioning a qualified third-party law firm. Do not easily trust any commercial commitments claiming that 'the product comes with its own filing' or 'paid review clearance.'
• ✅ Inspect code sources: Require vendors to clearly state the open-source origin and modification records of the software source code in the contract, and hire an independent third-party security company to conduct Software Composition Analysis (SCA) to verify whether it is free open-source code with direct rebranding.
• ✅ Standardize contract terms: Include strict intellectual property defect warranty liabilities and compliance breach penalty clauses in procurement contracts, requiring original manufacturer endorsements and reserving high final payments until system safety and compliance verification and legal review are passed.