Core Viewpoint - The emerging skincare brand "Zhuben" is facing public scrutiny due to allegations of discrepancies between product ingredient filings and actual contents, as well as accusations of false advertising by its founder during a live-streaming event [1][2]. Group 1: Company Background - "Zhuben" was founded in 2016 and has adopted a "self-research + self-controlled supply chain" model. The brand quickly gained popularity after entering the Taobao distribution channel in 2018, particularly with its makeup remover oil product [2]. - The brand's Tmall flagship store launched in 2019, collaborating with influencer Li Jiaqi for 34 live-streaming events, achieving a record of selling 50,000 bottles of makeup remover oil in just one minute [2]. - In 2020, "Zhuben" achieved a total GMV of over 200 million yuan, a 450% increase from 2019, with over 80% of revenue coming from makeup remover oil, selling over 3 million bottles in less than two years [2]. - The brand's sales during the 2022 Double 11 shopping festival reached 340 million yuan, with nearly 3.5 million units of makeup remover oil sold [2]. Group 2: Recent Controversy - Allegations surfaced that "Zhuben" products, including the high-end "Mo Hong" series, contained ingredients that did not match their filings, such as using rose oil substitutes and unapproved new raw materials [1]. - During a live-streaming event on June 25, the founder Liu Qianfei made claims about the products' efficacy in promoting hair growth and addressing women's health issues, which contradicted the products' classification as ordinary aromatherapy oils [1]. - Following the allegations, "Zhuben" removed several implicated products from major e-commerce platforms and the founder deleted related posts on social media [1]. Group 3: Regulatory Response - The Zhejiang Provincial Drug Supervision Administration has stated that the matter has been referred to the local market supervision bureau for investigation and is being handled according to standard procedures [2]. - On June 27, the brand issued an apology and proposed a rectification plan while denying any improper product ingredient claims, asserting that all products are safe [2]. Group 4: Financial Information - According to public records, Hangzhou Shucai Network Technology Co., Ltd., the parent company of "Zhuben," has a registered capital of over 4.89 million yuan [3]. - "Zhuben" completed A and B round financing in December 2020 and March 2021, respectively, with the B round raising 50 million USD from notable investors [3].

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the ongoing issues with the "Sui Bian Guo" product, which has been linked to pyramid schemes and false advertising, posing health risks to consumers while exploiting the growing demand for weight loss products during summer [2][3][8]. Group 1: Product and Market Overview - The "Sui Bian Guo" product is marketed with claims of detoxification and weight loss, despite being previously identified as a pyramid scheme and facing significant legal penalties [3][5]. - The product's ingredients include sugar-preserved green plums and various herbal powders, which are claimed to have detoxifying effects, but may lead to health issues with long-term use [4][8]. - The current retail price for "Sui Bian Guo" is set at 128 yuan per box, with various wholesale prices depending on the level of the distributor [5][6]. Group 2: Sales and Distribution Model - The distribution model for "Sui Bian Guo" resembles a pyramid scheme, requiring agents to purchase large quantities of the product to qualify for higher commission levels [6][7]. - Agents can achieve higher status by recruiting others, which aligns with the characteristics of illegal pyramid schemes as defined by Chinese law [7][9]. - The company incentivizes sales through a reward system for agents, further complicating the regulatory landscape [6][7]. Group 3: Regulatory and Health Concerns - The article discusses the broader issues in the weight loss product market, including the prevalence of false advertising and the use of harmful additives in products like keto coffee and slimming candies [8][9]. - Reports indicate that consumers have experienced adverse health effects from these products, highlighting the need for stricter regulation and consumer awareness [8][9]. - The hidden nature of transactions in the micro-business model complicates enforcement and consumer protection efforts [9].

Core Viewpoint - SPRUTRITION's quercetin capsules are under investigation for false advertising and misleading health claims, with the product being removed from live sales but still available on other platforms [1][4]. Group 1: Investigation and Regulatory Actions - The Beijing Chaoyang District Market Supervision Administration has initiated an investigation into SPRUTRITION's trademark registration company, Yunshan Hengmao (Beijing) Enterprise Management Co., Ltd., based on allegations of false advertising [1]. - Following a report published on May 28, it was found that the product's claims of treating nodules lack clinical evidence and violate advertising laws [1][2]. Group 2: Product Availability and Marketing Claims - Despite the removal of the product from the SPRUTRITION live sales platform, it remains available on overseas flagship stores, where misleading claims about its efficacy in treating nodules persist [4][5]. - The product's promotional materials on various platforms include phrases suggesting it can "identify and eliminate nodules," which raises concerns about compliance with advertising regulations [3]. Group 3: Company Background - Yunshan Hengmao (Beijing) Enterprise Management Co., Ltd., the applicant for the SPRUTRITION trademark, was established on November 17, 2017, with a registered capital of 2 million RMB, categorizing it as a small and micro enterprise [5].

一款几块钱的鼻喷产品，却让19岁的大学生小余痛苦不堪。在使用了4个月"濞秒通"后，原本一喷就通 的"神药"逐渐失效，小余的鼻塞24小时持续不断，只能张嘴呼吸，经临床诊断为"减充血剂依赖"。 6月25日新京报的报道，揭开"濞秒通"等"神药"面纱。明明是"消"字号产品，却通过各种误导，让鼻炎 患者相信它有药的疗效。等患者终于明白用它治鼻炎无异于饮鸩止渴时，伤害已经造成。 "消"字号产品，只有消毒功能，而不具备治疗效果。与药品不同，"消"字号产品无需做临床药效及用药 安全等实验，审批相对简便，上市快。因为这些特点，一些不法商家选择用它"挣快钱"。 从报道中可知，商家"挣快钱"最常用的是两招。第一招是虚假宣传，淡化甚至隐藏其"消"字产品的本来 面目，让患者相信它是可以信赖、可长期使用的药品。 第二招是让患者迅速看到"疗效"。为此，违法添加减充血剂成分成为常用手段。 法律对"消"字产品的规范，不像对药品那样严格，但并非无章可循。《消毒管理办法》从"卫生要 求"到"生产经营"，从"监督"到"罚则"，对"消"字号产品做了全方位规范。包括违法添加、虚假宣传在 内，商家每一个环节的违规，都有行政处罚的依据。 可见，在这件事情上 ...

Core Viewpoint - The Xinjiang Guzhangui Biotechnology Co., Ltd. is under investigation for alleged false advertising related to its camel milk products, following a report revealing discrepancies in product content and health claims [1][3]. Group 1: Company Actions and Responses - The Xinjiang Fukang City Market Supervision Administration has initiated an investigation into Guzhangui, with results to be publicly announced later [1]. - Following the report, Guzhangui has removed the implicated products, including "Camel Milk Tablets" and "Children's Growth Camel Milk Powder," from its online store [9]. - The company's official WeChat accounts have also been cleared of content promoting health benefits associated with camel milk [3]. Group 2: Product Claims and Marketing Practices - A report indicated that a product labeled as "Camel Milk Tablets" contained less than 10% camel milk powder, with the majority being cow milk powder [1]. - The company has made claims about camel milk's benefits for conditions like hypertension and diabetes, suggesting it can aid in disease management, which has been criticized by legal and nutrition experts as misleading [2][3]. - A nutritionist associated with Guzhangui claimed that camel milk could help manage blood pressure and suggested prolonged consumption for health benefits, further promoting the product through a referral system [2]. Group 3: Company Background and Market Position - Guzhangui claims to be a pioneer in camel milk products in China and has been a top seller in the camel milk product category for three consecutive years, with reported sales of 10 million items over three years [13]. - The company was established in 2024 and is primarily owned by individuals with connections to multiple companies in Henan, despite being registered in Xinjiang [13].

Core Viewpoint - The increasing use of specific words or numbers as trademarks in the food industry raises concerns about the clarity and accuracy of product information conveyed to consumers, as exemplified by the "Duoban" (多半) trademark used by White Elephant Foods, which has led to public debate regarding its implications on product weight perception [1][2][3] Group 1: Trademark Usage and Consumer Perception - The "Duoban" trademark is registered and does not directly describe the product's weight, yet consumers interpret it as indicating a significant increase in quantity, leading to confusion and dissatisfaction [1][2] - White Elephant Foods' "Duoban" products are marketed as larger portions, but the actual weight increase is only about 25 grams compared to standard products, which does not align with consumer expectations of "more than half" [3][4] - The trademark's registration may have been facilitated by extensive marketing efforts, which have established a strong association between the term and the brand, despite its misleading implications [4][5] Group 2: Industry Implications and Regulatory Concerns - The incident highlights a broader issue in the food industry where packaging and branding often mislead consumers, leading to a loss of trust in brands and the industry as a whole [6][10] - There is a call for stricter regulations and standards regarding the use of trademarks that may mislead consumers about product attributes, emphasizing the need for clarity and accuracy in marketing [12][13] - The reliance on misleading marketing tactics can harm long-term brand loyalty and market stability, as consumers may avoid brands that they perceive as deceptive [14][15]

Core Viewpoint - The rise of "professional barrage people" in live streaming commerce has led to legal actions against the practice of fabricating user reviews, highlighting the need for stricter regulations in the industry [2][3][4]. Group 1: Industry Overview - Live streaming commerce has experienced explosive growth, becoming a new shopping choice for consumers, but it has also given rise to the black market of "professional barrage people" who create false traffic [2][3]. - The interaction-driven algorithmic distribution mechanism in live streaming has incentivized merchants to use fake comments to create a false sense of popularity, leading to a distorted market environment [3][4]. Group 2: Legal and Regulatory Framework - The case against a Beijing company for hiring "professional barrage people" to falsely promote a jelly product's weight loss claims marks the first legal action against such practices, setting a precedent for future cases [2][3]. - According to the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, businesses are prohibited from making false or misleading commercial promotions, and the actions of "professional barrage people" violate this law, harming consumer rights and fair market competition [3][4]. Group 3: Consequences and Recommendations - The actions of "professional barrage people" can lead to severe legal consequences, including potential criminal charges for illegal business operations if the financial thresholds are met [4][5]. - To combat the issue, live streaming platforms must take responsibility by utilizing technology to monitor and identify fake comments, while regulatory authorities should increase enforcement efforts against the underlying organizations behind these practices [5][6].

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the deceptive practices in live-streaming pearl auctions, where the process of opening oysters to reveal pearls is manipulated to create an illusion of authenticity and excitement, ultimately misleading consumers [4][24][29]. Group 1: Live Streaming Pearl Auctions - The live-streaming auction model for pearls has gained popularity, particularly in Zhuji, which accounts for 80% of China's freshwater pearl sales and 70% globally [5][10]. - Consumers are drawn to the excitement of bidding on oysters, with some live streams attracting thousands of viewers, creating a competitive atmosphere [5][10]. - The auction process often involves artificially inflated prices, where the final bid can be significantly higher than the initial starting price due to orchestrated bidding strategies [12][16]. Group 2: Deceptive Practices - Investigations revealed that some live-streamers use pre-prepared pearls hidden in the oysters, creating a false impression of a genuine "live" opening [25][29]. - The practice of "guessing the pearl size" is employed to engage viewers and encourage bidding, further manipulating consumer behavior [18][24]. - Regulatory authorities have identified these practices as misleading and in violation of competition laws, leading to increased scrutiny and enforcement actions against such live-streaming businesses [29][32]. Group 3: Regulatory Response - Since 2019, over 70 live-streaming shops have been penalized for similar deceptive practices in Zhuji, indicating a growing concern over consumer protection in this sector [32]. - Regulatory bodies are implementing stricter guidelines to ensure transparency in live-streaming, including requiring full visibility of the auction process [34]. - The market supervision department is actively educating consumers about common fraudulent practices in the pearl industry to help them make informed purchasing decisions [36][38].

Group 1 - The core viewpoint of the article highlights the contrast between Lin Qingxuan's impressive financial performance and its repeated issues with false advertising, raising questions about the sustainability of its business model [1][2][6] - Lin Qingxuan reported a revenue of 12.1 billion yuan and a net profit of 1.87 billion yuan in 2024, with a gross margin of 82.5%, indicating strong financial growth and market leadership in the high-end domestic skincare sector [2][11] - The company has faced penalties for false advertising, including a recent fine of over 21,000 yuan for claiming its products had anti-aging effects, which were not substantiated [1][3][6] Group 2 - Lin Qingxuan's marketing claims have been scrutinized, particularly the assertion that its products are "anti-aging experts," which was found to be misleading as the products do not possess such efficacy [3][4] - The founder's involvement with the China Anti-Aging Promotion Association raises concerns about conflicts of interest, as the association's endorsement of the company's products lacks credibility [4][5] - The penalties imposed on Lin Qingxuan are minimal compared to its revenue, creating a dangerous precedent where the cost of non-compliance is outweighed by potential profits from misleading claims [6][7] Group 3 - Despite the controversies, Lin Qingxuan is moving forward with its IPO process, having submitted its prospectus to the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, indicating a strong intent to capitalize on its market position [1][11] - The company's ownership structure shows that the founder holds approximately 79.27% of the shares, with external investors like Yagor and Country Garden holding minority stakes [11][12] - The upcoming IPO will test whether investors prioritize financial metrics over ethical business practices, especially in light of the company's history of regulatory issues [12]

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].