Core Viewpoint - The new makeup brand TOMMARK's parent company, Jiyun Cosmetics (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., was fined for misleading advertising by claiming its ordinary cosmetics were suitable for pregnant women, which violates advertising laws [1][3]. Group 1: Company Overview - TOMMARK was established in 2019 in Shanghai and is known for its "skin-nourishing base makeup" concept, quickly gaining popularity [6]. - The brand's best-selling product, the "Mousse Cushion," sold over 50,000 units on its first day of launch in January 2022 [6]. - TOMMARK collaborates with top influencers, such as Li Jiaqi, and has achieved significant sales rankings on platforms like Tmall [6]. Group 2: Regulatory Actions - The Shanghai Municipal Market Supervision Administration fined Jiyun Cosmetics 20,000 yuan for advertising its product as suitable for pregnant women, which is misleading since the product is classified as ordinary cosmetics [3]. - The company was found to have violated Article 28 of the Advertising Law of the People's Republic of China, which prohibits deceptive advertising [3]. - Other cosmetic companies have faced similar penalties for making claims related to pregnancy suitability, indicating a trend of regulatory scrutiny in this area [6][7].

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 consumer complaints regarding IRY acne products, particularly the adverse effects experienced after use, and the difficulties faced in obtaining refunds or support from the company [1][5][19]. Group 1: Consumer Complaints - Multiple consumers reported worsening acne after using IRY products, with claims of "exploding acne" and severe skin reactions [1][5][19]. - Consumers were often told by customer service that their skin issues were due to "detoxification," which led to further product recommendations instead of addressing the complaints [1][6][19]. - As of June 24, there were 1,878 complaints on the Black Cat Complaints platform regarding IRY products, including issues like worsening acne, allergic reactions, and difficulties in obtaining refunds [1][19]. Group 2: Sales and Refund Policies - The sales process involved directing consumers from short video platforms to add IRY customer service on WeChat, where products were promoted [1][3]. - Customers faced challenges when attempting to return products, as the company often cited "opened products cannot be returned" as a reason for denying refunds [1][6][19]. - Some consumers were required to destroy the products and provide video evidence of destruction to receive partial refunds [19][21]. Group 3: Product Efficacy and Ingredients - The products contained ingredients like propylene glycol, which can cause skin irritation in high concentrations, especially for sensitive skin [12][29]. - The efficacy claims of the products were based on small sample tests, with results such as "51% reduction in acne in 4 weeks," which may mislead consumers if not properly contextualized [13][18]. - The active ingredients mentioned, such as Sophora flavescens extract and Centella Asiatica extract, were noted to be in low concentrations, raising questions about their effectiveness [11][12]. Group 4: Regulatory and Legal Issues - The company faced scrutiny for selling products that had been deregistered, violating cosmetic supervision regulations [24][22]. - Legal experts indicated that consumers might find it difficult to pursue claims due to the complexity of proving a direct link between product use and skin issues [32][33]. - The article suggests that regulatory bodies need to enhance guidelines on cosmetic efficacy claims and improve consumer protection laws [33][34].