Core Viewpoint - The article highlights a case of potential consumer deception by Dadi Insurance regarding its pet insurance policy, where the advertised coverage amount of 15,000 yuan is contradicted by a hidden clause limiting single claim payouts to 1,500 yuan, raising concerns about transparency and consumer rights [4][15][16]. Summary by Sections Incident Overview - A consumer, Ms. Li, purchased a pet medical insurance policy for her dog, which was advertised with a coverage limit of 15,000 yuan. However, upon filing a claim for a medical procedure costing 12,710.77 yuan, she discovered a hidden clause that limited the single claim payout to 1,500 yuan [4][7][12]. Policy Details - The insurance policy explicitly stated a total coverage amount of 15,000 yuan, but the limitation on single claims was buried in the second page of the policy under special terms, which is not prominently displayed [7][15]. Legal Opinions - Legal experts argue that Dadi Insurance's marketing practices may constitute systematic misleading behavior and fraudulent inducement, as the critical limitation on claims was not adequately disclosed, violating insurance law requirements for key terms [15][16]. - Other consumers have reported similar experiences, indicating a broader issue with Dadi Insurance's policy transparency [15][16]. Consumer Reactions - Ms. Li expressed frustration over the lack of clarity in the policy and the company's unwillingness to address her concerns adequately. She has taken legal steps to assert her rights [14][16].

2023年8月，南都·湾财社曾以《得房率25%，深圳一返租公寓变发霉商铺！多位业主提起诉讼》为题，深度曝光深圳福田区嘉汇新城嘉汇城项目违规销售乱 象。 报道显示，中介机构将二手商铺违规包装成精装公寓对外售卖，近600位业主在购房三年后，因返租收益爆雷才惊觉受骗，且部分房源还存在墙体发霉等严 重质量问题，已有业主通过法律途径提起诉讼。 时隔近两年，案件迎来关键进展。2025年6月，南都·湾财社记者从当事人李先生处获悉，广东省深圳市福田区人民法院定于6月17日上午9时30分，公开开庭 审理该起"房屋买卖合同纠纷"案，由于案件较为复杂，法院将连续三天开庭。 当事人李先生向记者透露，此次案件原告方由约50名嘉汇城公寓项目业主组成，他们均深陷此前曝光的"假公寓"骗局。而被告方阵容庞大，涵盖深圳市世华 房地产投资顾问有限公司、深圳市云房网络科技有限公司等涉事企业，以及可能在高评高贷环节存在违规行为的兴业银行股份有限公司深圳分行、中国建设 银行股份有限公司深圳市分行等共计十余家责任主体。 为何二手商铺能被包装成酒店式公寓对外销售？合同售价严重偏离市场的房源，银行又是如何通过贷款审批的？在业主们历时3年多的证据收集与持续投诉 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the issue of misleading marketing practices in the fish oil supplement industry, particularly through live streaming platforms, where products are often falsely advertised as having high levels of beneficial ingredients like Omega-3, EPA, and DHA [1][3][11]. Group 1: Product Claims and Testing - A specific fish oil product, marketed as having over 95% Omega-3 content, was found to contain no detectable levels of EPA and DHA, indicating a significant discrepancy between claims and actual content [5][7]. - The product was falsely labeled as being produced by a reputable pharmaceutical company, while it was actually manufactured by a lesser-known entity [7][9]. Group 2: Regulatory Standards and Industry Practices - The current regulatory framework for fish oil products in China lacks stringent requirements, allowing for widespread false advertising and the sale of ordinary food products as health supplements [12][14]. - The absence of mandatory standards for EPA and DHA content in fish oil products contributes to the prevalence of misleading claims in the market [12][14]. Group 3: Consumer Protection and Recommendations - Experts emphasize that consumers should be cautious and prefer purchasing from reputable pharmacies or official online stores, and look for products with the "blue hat" health food label to minimize risks [14][16]. - The article also notes that the recommended daily intake of EPA and DHA for adults ranges from 250 mg to 2000 mg, highlighting the importance of these components for health [16][18]. Group 4: Broader Implications in the Market - The investigation revealed that a significant portion of products sold in live streaming sessions misled consumers regarding their health benefits, with 69 out of 100 monitored products found to have misleading information [31]. - The trend of consumers seeking healthier and more natural food options has led to an increase in misleading marketing practices, necessitating better regulation and consumer education [31].

Core Viewpoint - The bottled water products marketed as "Peking University Weiming Lake Water" and "Tsinghua University River Water" have sparked social concern, with both universities firmly opposing the commercialization of their natural water resources for illegal profit [1]. Summary by Relevant Sections - **University Response**: Both Peking University and Tsinghua University officials stated that the water from their campuses is a valuable resource for maintaining a healthy ecosystem and should not be exploited for profit. They have contacted relevant platforms to urge the removal of these products and encourage reporting of similar cases [1]. - **Legal Perspective**: Legal experts have criticized the marketing claims of "enhancing brain power" and "stimulating wisdom" as blatant deception, potentially constituting false advertising. They have advised consumers to be rational in their purchasing decisions [1].

近日，据极目新闻报道，记者在某线上二手交易平台发现，多位商家售卖北京大学未名湖湖 水、清华大学校河河水，每500毫升标价20元至168元不等，有商家称用"高档矿泉水瓶"包 装，取水时可拍摄视频。 在商品页面上，商家称："未名湖湖水对多种植物生长具有神奇效果。将装有未名湖湖水的容 器置于室内，有助于调节空气湿度。每日凝视未名湖湖水，可提振精神，激发智慧，EQ飙 升。慎购，仅供观赏。" "清华校河河水对部分植物具有延年益寿的功效。将盛放校河河水的器皿摆放在房间内，有保 持湿度的作用。每天膜拜可提神醒脑，增益脑力，IQ爆表。慎拍，请勿饮用。" 记者注意到，网上不仅售卖支持拍摄视频的北大未名湖水，还有在销售北大校内土。 有业内人士认为，商家利用大众对名校的向往与崇拜心理，利用名校的知名度和文化附加 值，将校内水土包装成具有特殊意义的商品，夸大功效，正是迎合了部分消费者对名校文化 的猎奇心理。 据央视新闻报道，北京大学、清华大学相关部门负责人13日向记者表示，校内河湖水是维系 良好生态系统的宝贵资源，不应成为用以非法牟利的商品，坚决反对这样的行为。同时，这 种行为也违反了校园管理相关规定。 目前，两校已联系相关平台，督 ...

"增益脑力""激发智慧"？被冠以"北大未名湖湖水""清华校河河水"的瓶装水商品现网络交易平台，引发 社会关注。 北京大学、清华大学相关部门负责人13日向新华社记者表示，校内河湖水是维系良好生态系统的宝贵资 源，不应成为用以非法牟利的商品，坚决反对这样的行为。同时，这种行为也违反了校园管理相关规定。 目前，两校已联系相关平台，督促其下架相关商品。如发现类似情况，可向学校举报。 校对：祝甜婷 百万用户都在看 深夜突发，闪崩！ 见证历史！美国、英国，重大变局！ 关税突发！美国宣布：23日起加征！ 午后，突发！集体飙涨！ 李成钢：中美就落实两国元首通话共识及日内瓦会谈共识达成框架 暴增超370%！A股，重磅信号！ 违法和不良信息举报电话：0755-83514034 邮箱：bwb@stcn.com 来源：新华社微博 责编： 王璐璐 法律专家表示，"提神醒脑""激发智慧"等商家宣传卖点是赤裸裸的"忽悠"，涉嫌虚假宣传，提醒人们理 性消费。 ...

近日，总台《财经调查》记者走访发现，市场上标有"防晒"字样的产品品类繁多，但部分防晒衣实际无 法有效阻挡紫外线，不符合国家标准。一些所谓的防晒衣不仅未标注产品名称、厂名、厂址等信息，防 晒衣包装袋上还赫然印着"UPF50+"的标识。 在某网络平台直播间里，主播宣传防晒衣的多种特性："高效防晒、轻薄透气、保护肌肤健康、防晒指 数UPF100+"等。 依据国家标准（GB/T 18830-2009）的规定，当产品的紫外线防护指数（UPF）>40，且长波紫外线 （UVA）透过率时，方可称之为"防紫外线产品"。 记者依据网络平台显示的地址前往江苏省徐州市，以采购商的身份联系上徐州海诺服饰有限公司。进入 公司后，记者看到工作人员正忙碌地打包待售的防晒衣，仓库内整齐堆放着大量成品。 工作人员称，他们销量最好防晒衣实际紫外线防护指数仅为30+，但在电商平台的宣传中，却达到了 50+。 商家坦言，消费者很难辨别防晒衣的真假品质。在直播间中，商家用紫外线感应卡测试防晒衣的效果。 然而实际上，这种方法并不能测出防晒衣的品质。工作人员透露，这些伪劣防晒衣不仅有成人款，也有 儿童款。 报道播出后，江西上饶弋阳县、江苏徐州新沂市市场监管 ...

Core Viewpoint - The investigation reveals that many sunscreen products marketed as effective do not meet national standards, leading consumers to purchase items that fail to provide adequate UV protection [2][3][5]. Group 1: Product Quality and Misrepresentation - Numerous sunscreen clothing items are being falsely advertised with claims such as "core cooling technology" and "UPF100+" despite lacking proper certification [3][5]. - A factory in Jiangxi was found selling sunscreen clothing without proper labeling, and the actual UV protection factor was not disclosed by the company [5]. - The factory's best-selling product reportedly sold over 300,000 units annually, despite its lack of compliance with safety standards [5]. Group 2: Regulatory Response - Local market supervision authorities in Jiangsu and Jiangxi have initiated immediate inspections, leading to the seizure and testing of related products, and have ordered the suspension of production and sales by the involved companies [7][9]. - Authorities are conducting special inspections of similar businesses to address any violations and protect consumer rights [9].

Group 1 - The market is flooded with various products labeled as "sunscreen," but some sunscreen clothing fails to effectively block ultraviolet rays and does not meet national standards, leading consumers to purchase ineffective products [1][3] - Influencers in live-streaming sessions promote sunscreen clothing with exaggerated claims such as "core cooling technology" and "UPF100+" without substantiating these claims with valid testing [3][19] - According to national standards (GB/T 18830—2009), a product can only be labeled as a "UV protection product" if its ultraviolet protection factor (UPF) is greater than 40 and the UVA transmission rate is less than 5% [5] Group 2 - A leading sunscreen clothing product has a reported UPF of only "30+" while being advertised as "50+" on e-commerce platforms, indicating a significant discrepancy between actual and claimed performance [12][19] - Many manufacturers are aware that their products cannot pass national testing for UV protection, yet they continue to mislabel their products [17][19] - Some manufacturers offer "customized" services to clients, allowing them to arbitrarily label the UV protection index on the packaging of substandard sunscreen clothing [25][26] Group 3 - In Jiangxi, some sunscreen clothing lacks basic product information such as name, manufacturer, and address, yet still claims to have a UPF of "50+" [21][23] - The sales of these poorly labeled products are surprisingly high, with one popular item selling over 300,000 units annually despite its lack of compliance with safety standards [26] - In Zhejiang, some fabric suppliers openly sell materials that do not meet UV protection standards, which are then used to manufacture sunscreen clothing [28] Group 4 - Some illegal institutions openly offer to provide testing reports without actual product testing, creating a fraudulent certification process [30][32] - A company named "拓拓传媒" offers a "direct report" service where clients can obtain testing reports by simply providing company information and desired results, without submitting actual samples [34] - This practice of issuing false reports has led to the establishment of a complete black market for fake certifications in the industry [34]

Group 1 - The core issue involves Guangzhou Aiyingbao Medical Consulting Service Co., Ltd. being fined 250,000 yuan for false advertising related to surrogacy services [1][2] - The company was previously known as Guangzhou Zhengzai Fitness Co., Ltd. and was established in May 2018, later changing its name in November 2023 [1] - The company engaged in misleading promotional practices by claiming to guarantee successful childbirth, despite lacking the necessary medical resources and facilities [1][2] Group 2 - The actions of the company violated Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China, leading to the administrative penalty [2] - The market supervision authority mandated the company to cease its illegal activities immediately [2]