该产品属于儿童化妆品，主播宣称的产品功效、作用部位均和该产品的备案信息不符。记者查询国家药监局官网的备案信息显示，该产品的作用部位为面 部，功效宣称包括保湿、舒缓，使用人群为婴幼儿、儿童，并无主播及客服声称的"改善各种鼻部不适症状"功效，作用部位也未提到鼻腔。 北京市盈科律师事务所高级合伙人房玉洲律师表示，经营者在销售商品时暗示宣传普通化妆品具有"改善腺样体面容、过敏性鼻炎"等疾病治疗作用，该行为 违反了《化妆品监督管理条例》第四十三条规定的"化妆品广告不得明示或暗示产品具有医疗作用"以及《中华人民共和国广告法》第十七条规定的禁止非药 品、医疗器械类产品在广告中涉及疾病治疗宣传，同时，也违反了《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》（2025年修订）第九条第一款规定的经营者不得对商 品作虚假或引人误解的商业宣传。若经营者销售商品时指导消费者将备案范围仅限于面部使用的化妆品挤入鼻腔使用，系误导消费者的虚假宣传行为。该行 为违反了《化妆品监督管理条例》第三条、第四十三条的规定；同时违反了《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》（2025年修订）第九条第一款及《中华人民 共和国广告法》第四条的规定。 2025年11月28日，新京报 ...

（来源：中国消费者报） 图一：产品海报宣称的数据旁，以小字标注"V""IV"等。 图二：产品详情介绍底部小字备注相关数据。 ■本报记者 张文章 "弹簧水""时光水"……这些听上去颇为玄妙的产品，实际上可能是护肤用的普通化妆品——精华水。然 而，在部分直播间主播的激情推荐下，它们往往被"神化"：有的宣传能一站式解决"松弛垮脸"问题，有 的宣称能"医研级补水，速退'干敏红'"，有的声称持有"国家证书"。近日，《中国消费者报》记者对部 分化妆品直播间展开调查。 宣称功效与备案不符 记者调查发现，品牌精华水的宣传可谓"八仙过海，各显神通"。在弓正氏为美官方旗舰店，一款"昼夜 双抗时光水"被推销为"早上用玻尿酸精华水，补水保湿；晚上用虾青素精华水，美白提亮，肌肤接力跑 赢时光"，号称可打造"元气肌"，每瓶500毫升售价9.8元。 2025年12月23日，记者联系客服人员索要厂家信息。客服人员发来两份国产普通化妆品备案信息，显示 产品分别为"素秀臣氏虾青素凝润精华水"（备案编号：粤G妆网备字2023459133）和"素秀臣氏玻尿酸 保湿精华水"（备案编号：粤G妆网备字2023459131）。 记者通过化妆品监管APP查询 ...

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].