Core Viewpoint - The children's care brand "Dai Kesi" is under investigation for allegedly misleading advertising regarding a children's lip balm claimed to be "food-grade," violating regulations on children's cosmetics [1][6]. Group 1: Company Response - On January 22, Dai Kesi issued a statement clarifying that the "food-grade" claim was a misunderstanding by promotional staff and was not approved by the company, and the content was only displayed on a single platform [1][6]. - The company emphasized that the controversy pertains only to advertising language and does not involve the safety or quality of the product itself [6][7]. - Dai Kesi has committed to improving the review process for advertising content to prevent similar incidents in the future [6][7]. Group 2: Regulatory Actions - On January 19, the Wuxi Market Supervision Administration decided to investigate Dai Kesi after confirming that the case met the criteria for filing [6]. - The company had previously faced regulatory penalties in December 2025 for false advertising related to other products, including claims about suitability for pregnant women and unsupported benefits [7]. - Dai Kesi was fined 5,000 yuan for these violations and was ordered to correct its advertising practices [7].

Core Viewpoint - The investigation reveals that the product "Kangaroo Jack Baby Plant Extract Nasal Balm" is being falsely marketed as a solution for adenoid facial features and various nasal discomforts in children, leading to regulatory scrutiny [1][2]. Regulatory Actions - The Shenzhen Market Supervision Administration has initiated an investigation into the misleading advertising practices of the "Kangaroo Jack Baby Products Flagship Store" [4]. - The live stream has removed content suggesting improvements to adenoid facial features, but continues to imply benefits for nasal discomfort and allergic rhinitis [5]. Product Misrepresentation - The product is classified as a children's cosmetic, and its claimed effects do not align with its registered information, which states its purpose is for moisturizing and soothing the facial area, not for nasal issues [3]. - Legal experts indicate that the promotion of the product as having medical benefits violates multiple regulations, including the Cosmetics Supervision and Administration Regulations and the Advertising Law [3]. Advertising Practices - The live stream previously featured images and phrases that reinforced the product's supposed effectiveness for adenoid facial features, but has since altered its messaging while still hinting at benefits for nasal discomfort [2][5]. - The product's packaging and promotional materials have been criticized for misleading consumers regarding its intended use and benefits, particularly in relation to its application in the nasal cavity [3][9]. Consumer Misleading Claims - The term "baby gold standard filing" used in promotions is misleading, as it suggests a special certification that does not exist; the "small gold shield" merely indicates the product is a children's cosmetic [10]. - The National Medical Products Administration has clarified that the "small gold shield" is not a quality certification but a distinguishing mark for children's cosmetics [10].

Core Viewpoint - The investigation by the China Consumer News reveals misleading marketing practices in the live-streaming sales of skincare products, particularly focusing on the exaggerated claims of efficacy and the discrepancies between product names and their official registration names [3][4][5]. Group 1: Product Claims and Marketing Practices - Products such as "弹簧水" (Spring Water) and "时光水" (Time Water) are marketed with grand claims, including "deep hydration" and "skin elasticity improvement," but the actual product names differ significantly from the promotional names [4][5]. - The promotional materials often feature large claims without clear sources, while the actual data is buried in small print, indicating that the results are based on limited sample sizes and subjective assessments [5][6]. - For instance, the "弹簧水" claims a 57% increase in skin moisture after one hour and a 4% improvement in skin texture after four weeks, but these results are based on tests with only 26 and 30 participants respectively [5]. Group 2: Regulatory Compliance and Misleading Information - The investigation found that some products, like those from 温博士 (Wenboshi), were marketed with false claims of having "national certification," which were actually just product registration documents [8][9]. - The Xiamen market supervision department identified violations of advertising regulations, leading to a fine of 5,000 yuan for misleading promotional practices [9]. - The industry is cautioned against making exaggerated claims, as ordinary cosmetics are not allowed to assert therapeutic effects, and such actions may lead to accusations of false advertising [9]. Group 3: Consumer Awareness and Recommendations - Consumers are advised to be vigilant about exaggerated claims and to verify product information through official channels, such as the National Medical Products Administration website or cosmetic regulatory apps [9]. - It is recommended that consumers understand their skin types and choose products accordingly, avoiding those with potentially irritating ingredients [9].

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].