Sellers on Meituan’s Mexico site in August 2026 have recently been receiving two alarming emails: one states, ”Your RFC tax ID has not passed the e.firma electronic signature verification; please complete the verification as soon as possible”; the other states, ”Invoices cannot currently be issued for some of your products due to missing CFDI electronic invoice information. Please provide the SAT product classification codes and tax rates.” These two new regulations have effectively eliminated the ”borrowed RFC” model—the most common practice on the Meituan platform in recent years—where sellers used someone else’s tax ID to set up a store and get through platform reviews.

A real-life case: In 2024, a 3C seller in Zhejiang obtained an RFC tax number through a ”proxy registration” arrangement and linked it to a cross-border store on Meike Duo’s Mexico site, achieving average monthly sales of approximately $80,000. In July 2026, following the platform’s upgrade to RFC entity consistency verification, the store was immediately frozen—reissuing the e.firma required the original tax ID holder to sign an authorization letter via the email address registered in the CSF file, but the holder could no longer be contacted. The seller now faces the dilemma of having approximately $250,000 worth of inventory that cannot be retrieved or sold.

This is not an isolated incident. According to publicly available statistics, in August 2026, the pass rate for Meike Duo’s RFC entity consistency verification was only around 30%, and a large number of cross-border stores had their sales privileges suspended due to tax code issues. This means that sellers who previously relied on ”affiliated RFCs” will have to undergo a structural transformation from an ”affiliated” to a ”self-owned” model.

Qicaiying Group specializes in providing domestic and international company registration services in Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Shanghai, Beijing, Hangzhou, Hong Kong, the United States, Japan, South Korea, Southeast Asia, Singapore, the British Virgin Islands (BVI), the Cayman Islands, and other locations, as well as corporate annual review and auditing, bookkeeping and tax filing, tax compliance, information updates, bank account opening, ODI filing, FDI filing, and other corporate services; Hong Kong identity application, renewal, and permanent residency services; Singapore EP application services; and cross-border e-commerce support and managed operations—all as part of our one-stop service. If you have any needs or are interested, please feel free to contact me at any time (Consultation Hotline: 18676749275; add me on WeChat: Qicaiyingjituan).

I. e.firma: Mexico’s RFC ”Digital ID”

e.firma (firma electrónica) is a digital identity tool certified by the Mexican Tax Administration Service (SAT); it is essentially an electronic signature key used in conjunction with the RFC tax ID number. The RFC is the ”Corporate Tax Registration Number,” while e.firma is the ”digital key for corporate tax operations”—the two must be used together and are both indispensable.

The process for obtaining an e.firma: First, submit an application on the Mexican Tax Administration Service (SAT) website, generate an initial key, visit a SAT office to have your biometric data (fingerprints and facial recognition) collected in person, and pick up your digital certificate. The entire process takes 4–8 weeks and must be completed in person in Mexico or through a local tax representative.

Why does Meike Duo require e.firma? Because the RFC subject consistency verification requires the ”entity holding the RFC” to sign a letter of authorization via e.firma, explicitly authorizing the use of that RFC for compliance purposes related to a specific seller account. e.firma is the key verification method for confirming that the RFC holder is both a ”real person” and the “entity” itself; without e.firma, the platform cannot verify that the submitter is the RFC holder in person.

For sellers with ”affiliated RFCs,” the problem lies at the source: since the RFC was originally obtained through an ”affiliation” channel, the tax ID holder and the seller are not the same entity, so the seller cannot obtain the e.firma for that tax ID. Even if they are willing to follow the proper compliance process, they would need to re-register their own Mexican company and obtain their own RFC—a process that takes 3–6 months and involves significant time and financial costs.

II. CFDI Electronic Invoices: Meiketuo to Conduct a Secondary Screening of Products for Which ”Invoices Cannot Be Issued” Starting in August

CFDI (Comprobante Fiscal Digital por Internet) is Mexico’s official electronic invoicing system, similar to China’s electronic VAT invoices. CFDI records sales data, tax amounts, and product classifications for each transaction and serves as the core document for sellers’ tax compliance.

According to Meikeduo's new August regulations, an electronic CFDI invoice must be generated for each item. The key information that needs to be provided includes:

• SAT Product Classification Code: Each product must correspond to a product classification code in the Mexican tax system (not the categories on the MeKeDuo platform, but the SAT’s c_ClaveProdServ tax classification).
• Units of Measurement: Items such as pieces, kilograms, meters, and sets must comply with Mexican tax law standards.
• Tax Rate Information: IVA (Value-Added Tax, typically 16%), ISR (Income Tax, calculated based on the seller's legal status and tax status). Tax rates vary significantly depending on the type of entity (individual vs. company, domestic vs. cross-border).

Products that cannot be converted to CFDI are effectively ”flagged as problematic items” at the platform level. The practical consequences are as follows: buyers cannot view invoices in the Meike Duo backend (which affects consumer trust and repeat purchases); the platform reduces the search ranking of these products; and, in severe cases, the products are removed from the platform entirely.

For sellers operating under a ”affiliated RFC” arrangement, the CFDI issue is even more severe: since the tax ID holder is not the seller themselves, even if the SAT product classification code is completed, they cannot issue invoices normally—because the ”seller” listed on the invoice must match the tax ID holder. Furthermore, the seller’s sales revenue cannot be deposited into the seller’s bank account but instead goes into the account of the tax ID holder, further exacerbating cash flow risks.

III. Three Core Issues in Verifying RFC Body Consistency

The Meiketuo platform’s RFC entity consistency verification primarily checks the following three aspects:

1. Consistency Between the RFC and the Store’s Registered Entity: The legal entity registered for a cross-border store (a company based in Mainland China or Hong Kong, China) must match the entity associated with the RFC tax ID bound to the backend. This is a key verification requirement following the June 2026 system update—the previous practice of having ”Company A as the store’s legal entity and Company B’s individual tax ID as the tax ID” is no longer valid.

2. RFC status is normal: The RFC must be in ”normal” status with the Mexican Tax Authority, with no tax arrears, no deregistration, and no record of violations. This means that RFCs associated with companies that have consistently filed zero returns or are in an abnormal status will be automatically rejected by the platform.

3. The e.firma authorization link is complete: A power of attorney signed via e.firma must be initiated by the RFC holder personally. If the authorization chain is broken (e.g., due to a change in the holder, an invalid email address, or an invalid signature), the platform will also reject it.

RFC sellers who pass these three verification steps will be awarded the ”Verified” label by the platform, and their withholding tax rate will be reduced from 16% to 10.5%—this is the platform’s direct reward for compliant sellers.

IV. Analysis of the Impact of the New Regulations: How Three Types of ”Affiliated RFC” Sellers Can Protect Themselves

The new regulations will have the greatest impact on three types of sellers:

• Category 1: Sellers using shell companies without an e.firma. They obtained an RFC through a ”proxy” channel but did not complete the e.firma digital certification. The most direct solution for these sellers is to abandon their old store and re-register their own Mexican company, along with an RFC and e.firma. The registration process for a new store takes 3–6 months; during this time, sellers can continue operating on other Mercado Libre sites (such as Chile, Argentina, and Brazil).

• Category 2: Sellers with a history of long-term zero reportingMexican entities that have long filed zero tax returns in the past to ”save on tax costs” will be automatically flagged as ”abnormal” by the platform after August 2026. The recommended course of action is to file back taxes for the past three years (including zero-reports even for periods with low sales), pay any late payment penalties, and update the company’s tax status. Once these corrective measures are completed, you may reapply for RFC verification on the platform.

• Category 3: Sellers Registered Under an Individual’s Name. The platform has explicitly stated that it will not verify cross-border stores linked to an individual RFC (for natural persons, not companies, in the Mexican tax system). The solution is to register a (Pty) Ltd. or an S.A. de C.V. and obtain a corporate RFC to replace the existing link.

The safest way to resolve this situation is to complete two tasks simultaneously: find a qualified local law firm in Mexico to handle the full set of compliance procedures—including company registration, RFC, and RFCe.firma—and, at the same time, apply for a new Mercadillo store using the compliant RFC entity to set up the account, while clearing out inventory from the old store.

V. Compliance Cost Estimation: Comparison of Long-Term TCO Between In-House RFC and Affiliated RFC

The ”low cost” of hosted RFCs is an illusion—the total cost of ownership (TCO) over the long term is actually significantly higher than that of self-hosted RFCs:

• Annual Cost of Registering with the RFC: Annual affiliate fee + R0.5–10,000 rand platform commission + risk of store closure due to lack of e.firma permissions (10–201 TP3T probability) + potential inventory losses; taking a store with monthly sales of $80,000 as an example, the annual cost of being an affiliate is approximately $80,000–$120,000, and is fraught with uncertainty.

• Annual Cost of Ownership (RFC): Company registration + RFC + e.firma: a one-time investment of 20,000–30,000 rand; bimonthly tax filings: 5,000–10,000 rand per year; local tax agent fees: approximately 10,000 rand per year; The annual total cost is approximately 50,000–70,000 rand (about 20,000–30,000 RMB), but this approach completely eliminates the risk of account suspension on e-commerce platforms and qualifies you for a preferential comprehensive withholding tax rate of 10.51%.

From a TCO perspective, the total cost of owning an RFC is only one-half to one-third of that of a hosted solution, and it completely eliminates the systemic risk of having the system ”wiped clean overnight.”

Qicaiying Group has partnerships with local law firms and tax agencies in Mexico, enabling it to provide Chinese sellers with end-to-end services covering Mexican company registration, RFC application, e.firma registration, CFDI tax compliance, and compliance-based onboarding applications for Mercado Libre. The transition from ”affiliated” to ”self-owned” operations is not only about complying with new regulations but also about enabling sellers to build their Latin American businesses into truly sustainable, long-term ventures. For inquiries, call 18676749275 or add WeChat: Qicaiyingjituan.