近日，有消费者向新京报记者反映，大连富生制药生产、销售的一款人参皂苷食品涉嫌抗肿瘤功效宣传。"原本想 买给家中患肿瘤的老人服用，但仔细一看竟是一款固体饮料，这不是妥妥的虚假宣传吗？"该消费者告诉记者，这 款在富生网健保健食品专营店售卖的人参皂苷产品，其主要成分为5年及5年以下人工种植的人参须，除此之外无 其他特殊成分。 新京报记者调查发现，这款售价高达1780元/盒的"富力博士人参皂苷Rg3"产品并非药品，真实身份仅为固体饮 料，属于普通食品。该产品还通过官网、电商页面的"科研成果展示""AI智能解答"等多种方式，暗示其具有抗肿 瘤功效，甚至与已获批的抗癌药物"参一胶囊"捆绑。 普通食品"嫁接"药品研发做宣传 在某网购平台的"富生网健保健食品专营店"，共有四款标注"人参皂苷Rg3"的产品，分别为Rg3人参浓缩液提取颗 粒固体饮料、人参复合固体饮料（木糖醇型）、Rg3人参金银花压片糖果、Rg3西洋参压片糖果，价格均为1780 元/盒。产品所标注的生产企业为大连富生制药有限公司，产品类别为"固体饮料""压片糖果"，均属普通食品。其 中，销量最高的Rg3人参浓缩液提取颗粒固体饮料配料表中，标注的成分为"5年及5年以 ...

Core Viewpoint - A real estate agent from Nanjing has publicly accused a local Beike brand of engaging in unfair competition by posting fake listings online to attract clients, leading to customer dissatisfaction and complaints against legitimate agents [1] Group 1: Unfair Competition Allegations - The agent claims that some intermediaries under the Beike brand are advertising properties at significantly lower prices than their actual transaction values, misleading potential buyers [1] - For instance, a property that sells for 2 million yuan is being advertised for 1.5 million yuan, which is a tactic to collect customer contact information without actually facilitating property viewings [1] - This practice has resulted in clients feeling misled after purchasing properties at higher prices, leading them to demand refunds based on the false listings [1] Group 2: Company Response - The local Beike operations center has intervened in the situation, with personnel dispatched to the involved store to conduct interviews with the store owner and the agents responsible for the misleading listings [1] - Beike has stated that if any violations are confirmed, appropriate actions will be taken in accordance with their management regulations [1]

固收 《价格法》修订如何助力"反内卷"？20250810 修订后的价格法完善了政府定价机制，从直接定价转为制定规则，政府 更侧重建立科学合理的定价规则，以适应复杂多变的市场环境，确保市 场公平竞争，有效监管垄断行为。 新法明确了不正当竞争行为的认定标准，提高了执法效率和法律威慑力， 并大幅提高罚款金额，确保违法者受到应有惩罚，有效遏制不正当竞争， 维护健康市场秩序。 政府将成本监审作为定价的重要程序，规定价格不得低于成本价，并有 权进行成本监审，加强价格成本的监管力度，同时通过多种方式广泛听 取意见，确保定价的合理性。 新法细化了低价倾销的认定标准，规范市场价格秩序，并对价格串通、 哄抬价格、价格歧视等不正当竞争行为进行了具体细化，防止大企业对 小企业的不公平竞争。 2025 年上半年外卖平台补贴大战损害了商家和消费者利益，市场监管 总局约谈平台企业，要求规范促销行为，平台承诺不以显著低于成本的 价格销售商品和服务。 Q&A 价格法修订的背景是什么？ 摘要 反内卷这一概念最早在 2024 年 7 月中共中央政治局会议上提出，并在同年 12 月得到进一步强调。其核心目的是防止恶意竞争，通过政府引导、行业自律和 ...

Core Viewpoint - The unconventional collision test conducted by Li Auto for its newly launched i8 has sparked significant public debate regarding marketing ethics, industry standards, and brand competition, leading to a joint statement from Li Auto, China Automotive Engineering Research Institute, and Dongfeng Liuzhou Motor to advocate for self-regulation and integrity in the automotive industry [1][2][3]. Group 1: Incident Overview - The incident originated from a video shown at Li Auto's new car launch on July 29, where a collision test between the 2.6-ton Li i8 and an 8-ton Dongfeng Liuzhou truck was presented, showcasing the i8's passenger cabin integrity [2][3]. - Following the video release, Dongfeng Liuzhou issued a statement on July 31, criticizing the test for being misleading and damaging to its brand image [3]. - On August 3, both China Automotive Engineering Research Institute and Li Auto responded, clarifying that the test was not intended to evaluate the safety of other brands [3]. Group 2: Joint Statement and Industry Response - On August 6, a joint statement was released by the three parties to clarify facts, eliminate misunderstandings, and maintain a healthy industry environment [1][3]. - Li Auto apologized for the unintended negative impact on Dongfeng Liuzhou's brand and committed to taking measures to prevent similar controversies in the future [3][4]. - Dongfeng Liuzhou emphasized its commitment to high-quality products and compliance with legal standards, rejecting unfair competition [4]. Group 3: Industry Implications - The incident highlighted the need for industry-wide cooperation for high-quality development, with experts acknowledging the importance of the joint statement in addressing the controversy [2][5]. - The collision test raised questions about the appropriateness of comparing vehicles across different categories, as standard testing typically does not include such comparisons [5]. - The event unexpectedly increased visibility for Dongfeng Liuzhou, leading to a surge in social media engagement and brand awareness [6]. Group 4: Market Performance - The commercial vehicle market, particularly heavy trucks, showed strong performance in July, with sales reaching 83,000 units, a 42% year-on-year increase [6][7]. - The overall commercial vehicle production and sales for the first half of the year were 2.099 million and 2.122 million units, respectively, reflecting growth of 4.7% and 2.6% year-on-year [6].

Core Viewpoint - The company has issued a formal statement addressing recent rumors and misinformation circulating online, clarifying various allegations and asserting its commitment to legal rights and business integrity [3][5][7]. Group 1: Clarifications on Allegations - The company refutes claims regarding a "commercial secret infringement" involving a technology that has been deemed public knowledge, asserting that it has not utilized this technology in any products [3]. - The company corrects misinformation about the age of its chairman's spouse, stating the accurate birth year is 1991, not 1964 [4]. - The company clarifies that its collaboration with the U.S. energy integrator Powin has not reached a scale of delivery, and it is not listed as a creditor in Powin's bankruptcy filing, indicating no adverse impact on its operations [5]. Group 2: Product and Legal Matters - The company defends its 587Ah battery cell against claims of similarity to a competitor's product, emphasizing that it is a fully self-developed product based on its previously released energy storage cell [6]. - The company addresses a civil lawsuit regarding unfair competition, stating that no legal documents have confirmed any wrongdoing, and it plans to defend its rights through legal channels [7]. - The company expresses strong condemnation of the malicious fabrication and dissemination of false information, urging the public to refrain from spreading rumors and to maintain a fair competitive environment [7].

Group 1 - The president of Haicheng Energy, Feng Dengkai, has been reported for allegedly infringing on trade secrets and has been taken into custody by the police in Ningde, Fujian [1][3] - Haicheng Energy issued a statement claiming that the technology in question, "composite electrolyte technology," is publicly known and does not constitute a trade secret, asserting that the dispute will not adversely affect its operations [3][4] - The company clarified that it has not used the disputed technology in any products and is providing support to Feng Dengkai and his family during the ongoing investigation [3][4] Group 2 - The company addressed rumors regarding its chairman's spouse's age and the bankruptcy of its major U.S. customer, Powin, stating that these claims are false and that the bankruptcy will not impact its operations [3][4] - Haicheng Energy's 587Ah battery cell is claimed to be fully self-developed and not in violation of any competition laws, with no legal documents confirming any unfair competition claims against the company [4][5] - The company has been involved in ongoing disputes with Ningde Times, including a civil lawsuit filed by Ningde Times for unfair competition, with a court hearing scheduled for August 12 [4][5] Group 3 - Founded in 2019, Haicheng Energy focuses on providing energy storage battery solutions and has rapidly developed into the third-largest energy storage battery company globally by shipment volume [5][6] - The company is currently in the process of listing on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, with projected revenue of 12.917 billion yuan and an adjusted net profit of 318 million yuan for 2024 [5][6] - The chairman, Wu Zuyu, and several executives have backgrounds in Ningde Times, but this has not led to a positive relationship, as disputes have arisen over competition and employment agreements [6]

Core Viewpoint - The company, Hai Chen Energy, issued a statement addressing recent online rumors and misinformation, asserting that the claims made are significantly inaccurate and do not affect its operations [1]. Group 1: Response to Rumors - The company clarified that the "composite electrolyte technology" related to Mr. Feng's "trade secret infringement" case is publicly known and does not constitute a trade secret, thus not impacting the company's operations [1]. - The company has not utilized the disputed technology in any of its products, and the ongoing investigation will not adversely affect its production and operations [1]. Group 2: Product Development - The company refuted claims that its 587Ah battery cell is similar to a competitor's product, stating that it is a fully self-developed product based on its previously released long-duration energy storage cell [5]. - The 587Ah battery cell was specifically designed for a 2-hour scenario requirement, showcasing the company's innovation in energy storage technology [5]. Group 3: Legal Matters - The company stated that there are no effective legal documents recognizing it as engaging in unfair competition in the ongoing civil lawsuit, emphasizing that the claims are solely the plaintiff's viewpoint [6]. - The company intends to defend its legal rights vigorously and condemns the malicious fabrication and dissemination of false information [6].

Core Viewpoint - Haicheng Energy issued a formal statement addressing five major controversies, including allegations of "trade secret infringement," the bankruptcy of its largest U.S. customer, and a lawsuit for unfair competition [1] Group 1: Trade Secret Infringement - The company denied the allegations of trade secret infringement related to Mr. Feng, stating that the "composite electrolyte technology" in question is publicly known and does not constitute a trade secret [6][7] - The controversy involves a patent transfer from Shenzhen Haihong New Energy Technology Co., which transferred multiple "electrolyte" related patents to Haicheng Energy in 2022 [6][7] - The company asserted that it has not used the "composite electrolyte technology" in any of its products, and the ongoing investigation will not adversely affect its operations [7] Group 2: Lawsuit for Unfair Competition - Haicheng Energy is currently facing a lawsuit from CATL for unfair competition, with the case filed in the Ningde Intermediate People's Court, set to be heard on August 12 [8] - The company emphasized that there has been no legal ruling confirming any unfair competition on its part, and the claims made by the plaintiff do not represent judicial recognition of the facts [7] Group 3: Customer Bankruptcy and Order Impact - The company addressed rumors regarding the bankruptcy of its largest U.S. customer, Powin, and the alleged evaporation of a 1.5 billion yuan order, clarifying that it has no unresolved debts with Powin [10][11] - The bankruptcy filing of Powin does not pose a negative impact on the company's operations [12] Group 4: Product Development and Competition - Haicheng Energy refuted claims that its 587Ah battery cell is highly similar to a competitor's product, asserting that its product is independently developed based on specific requirements [13] - The company highlighted that its 587Ah battery cell was first released in 2023, distinguishing it from competitors [13]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the recent controversies surrounding Haitian Energy Technology Co., Ltd., including allegations of "trade secret infringement," the bankruptcy of its major U.S. client, and lawsuits regarding unfair competition [2][5]. Group 1: Trade Secret Infringement - Haitian Energy denies the allegations of trade secret infringement related to the "composite electrolyte technology," asserting that it is publicly known and does not constitute a trade secret [7][8]. - The controversy involves Feng Dengkai, who has been taken into custody by police for allegedly infringing on trade secrets, with the complainant being CATL [5][8]. - The company claims it has not used the disputed technology in any of its products, and the ongoing investigation will not adversely affect its operations [8][9]. Group 2: Bankruptcy of Major Client - The company refutes rumors regarding the bankruptcy of its largest U.S. client, Powin, stating that it is not listed among Powin's creditors and that the bankruptcy will not impact its operations [10][11]. - The company emphasizes that its collaboration with Powin has not yet reached a scale of delivery, thus mitigating potential risks from the client's financial issues [10][11]. Group 3: Unfair Competition Lawsuit - Haitian Energy is currently facing a lawsuit for unfair competition initiated by CATL, with the case filed in the Ningde Intermediate People's Court [9]. - The company asserts that there are no legal documents confirming its involvement in unfair competition, and the claims made by the plaintiff do not reflect judicial recognition of the facts [8][9]. Group 4: Product Development and Market Position - The company defends its 587Ah battery cell, claiming it is a fully self-developed product and not similar to competitors' offerings, despite claims of high similarity [11]. - Haitian Energy's market position is notable, with a valuation exceeding 25 billion yuan, ranking third in the global energy storage market [5].

Core Viewpoint - The company, Haicheng Energy Storage Technology Co., Ltd., has issued a statement addressing various rumors and misinformation circulating online, asserting that these claims are false and defending its business practices and reputation [1][2][3]. Group 1: Commercial Secret Infringement - The company refutes claims regarding a "commercial secret infringement" related to the "composite electrolyte technology," stating that a third-party assessment confirmed the technology is publicly known and does not constitute a trade secret [3][4]. - The company has not utilized this technology in any of its products, and the ongoing investigation will not adversely affect its operations [3]. Group 2: Personal Information Misrepresentation - The company clarifies misinformation regarding the age of the chairman's spouse, asserting that the claim of her being born in 1964 is false; her actual birth year is 1991 [4]. Group 3: Customer Bankruptcy and Order Impact - The company addresses rumors about its largest U.S. customer, Powin, filing for bankruptcy and the alleged loss of a $1.5 billion order, stating that their collaboration has not reached a scale of delivery and there are no outstanding debts between the two parties [5][6]. - The bankruptcy filing does not list the company as a creditor, indicating no negative impact on its operations [5]. Group 4: Product Development Claims - The company disputes claims that its 587Ah battery cell is similar to a competitor's product, emphasizing that its 587Ah cell is based on its own 2023 innovation and is designed for specific two-hour scenarios [6]. Group 5: Unfair Competition Lawsuit - The company responds to allegations of unfair competition, stating that no legal documents have confirmed any wrongdoing on its part, and the claims are merely the plaintiff's perspective [7]. - The company intends to defend its rights through legal channels and condemns the malicious spread of false information [7][9].