Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the legal risks and consumer hazards associated with cosmetic advertising claims that lack scientific backing, emphasizing the importance of compliance with regulations regarding efficacy claims [1][2][3]. Regulatory Compliance - According to the "Cosmetic Efficacy Claim Evaluation Specification," claims such as anti-wrinkle, oil control, soothing, and nourishing must be supported by scientific evidence, including literature, research data, or efficacy evaluation test results [4]. - A company in Hangzhou was penalized for advertising a product with claims of "nourishing" and "soothing" without providing the necessary evidence to support these claims, violating the "Advertising Law of the People's Republic of China" [2][3]. Case Study - The company sold a "Camellia Flower Fragrance Shower Gel" on Douyin and Kuaishou, claiming it had various skin benefits, but failed to provide evidence for these claims, leading to an investigation and subsequent penalties [2][3]. - The regulatory authority determined that the product's registered efficacy claims did not include "nourishing" or "soothing," and the company could not provide evidence from efficacy evaluation tests to support its advertising claims [3]. Penalties and Enforcement - The company was fined over 1,000 yuan, which is four times the advertising costs, due to its violation of advertising laws [3]. - The article emphasizes the need for cosmetic businesses to adhere strictly to relevant laws and regulations to avoid penalties and ensure consumer protection [5].

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights that Proya's products are marketed with "anti-aging" claims, but official registrations only support "anti-wrinkle" claims, indicating potential regulatory non-compliance [2][3][11]. Product Claims - Proya's flagship store lists multiple products, including "Early C Late A Dual Anti-aging Essence" and "Ruby Cream 3.0," with "anti-aging" claims in their promotional materials [3][10]. - The "Ruby Essence 3.0" is described as based on "cross-field anti-aging core concepts," while another platform refers to it as "anti-wrinkle" [3][5]. - The "Ruby Cream 3.0" claims to lead a new era of anti-aging based on 17 years of peptide research, but the same product is marketed as "anti-wrinkle" on different platforms [3][5]. Regulatory Compliance - The National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) only recognizes "anti-wrinkle" as a valid claim for the mentioned Proya products, with no mention of "anti-aging" [5][11]. - The NMPA's guidelines specify that any new claims must undergo evaluation by registered testing institutions and comply with national standards [11][14]. Market Performance - The "Ruby Cream 3.0" was launched in 2023 and has sold over 700,000 units on Tmall, while the "Ruby Essence 3.0" has sold over 100,000 units [10]. - The "Early C Late A Dual Anti-aging Essence" was first introduced in 2020 and currently ranks first in Tmall's A-retinol liquid essence repurchase list [10]. Industry Context - The article references a previous case involving Lin Qingxuan, which faced penalties for using "anti-aging" claims in advertising, emphasizing the regulatory scrutiny in this sector [11][14]. - Experts indicate that claims like "anti-aging" are considered violations, and companies should adhere strictly to the NMPA's defined categories for cosmetic claims [14].