黄圣依、杨子直播带货后，商家集体报警！上海法院正式判决来了

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the "1·16 meat product live-streaming incident" involving celebrities Yang Zi and Huang Shengyi, highlighting the fraudulent activities of companies that misled merchants into paying substantial service fees for a failed live-streaming event [3][7][9]. Group 1: Incident Overview - The incident attracted significant public attention after six company staff members were detained by Shanghai police [3]. - Over 25 million yuan in service fees from merchants remain unrefunded, which has been classified as the criminal amount by the court [3][31]. - The first-instance verdict from the Minhang District People's Court sentenced three defendants to prison terms ranging from ten years and ten months to eleven years and three months for contract fraud [33]. Group 2: Merchant Experience - On January 16, 2024, Yang Zi and Huang Shengyi participated in a live-streaming event that attracted numerous small and medium-sized merchants, who paid service fees ranging from 50,000 to 100,000 yuan for a chance at high sales [5][9]. - Merchants were promised high returns, but the live-streaming event ended poorly, with products left unsold and companies disappearing [7][12]. - Affected merchants numbered over 200, with total losses exceeding 30 million yuan [7][9]. Group 3: Fraudulent Operations - The investigation revealed that the live-streaming failure was a result of a meticulously planned contract fraud rather than operational failure [19]. - The main perpetrators, with only a college education, misrepresented their connections to celebrities and concealed critical information during the recruitment of merchants [19][22]. - They established shell companies to facilitate the fraudulent activities and misled merchants about the terms of the live-streaming contracts, including the duration and product presentation [20][22]. Group 4: Legal Proceedings - The Shanghai Minhang Good Mama Film and Television Development Co., Ltd., which organized the live-stream, was implicated in the contract fraud and had multiple legal disputes prior to the incident [31]. - The court's ruling confirmed the fraudulent nature of the operations, leading to the prosecution of the three main defendants [28][33].