每经编辑｜程鹏 每经评论员|徐肖逍 编辑|程鹏 杜恒峰 校对|陈柯名 这个案例中的成功维权，首先得归功于消费者的较真。从到店选羊、现场称重，到给羊腿、羊尾做专属标记，当事人全程盯守、留存证据，每一步都理性 而坚定。正是这种"不糊弄、不妥协、不吃哑巴亏"的较真，让商家的小动作无处遁形，让原本可能被模糊过去的"正常损耗"，被确认为消费欺诈。 在这个意义上，消费者的"较真"，维护的不只是自己的利益，更是市场的公平。消费者越清醒、越坚定，市场陷阱就越难藏身；维权意识越强，不法商家 就越不敢肆意妄为。 但是，这位消费者堪称"教科书式维权"，也恰恰说明了在类似乱象中，普通消费者维权之难。 重庆市南岸区市场监督管理局介入之后，迅速发布通报，还原了事情真相，同时责令其停止违法行为，赔付消费者费用。但是所谓"退一赔三"，不是治本 之策，难以根治行业乱象。 对长期靠欺诈牟利的商家而言，单笔赔偿金额远不及违法所得，难以形成足够震慑。对整个行业而言，个案的查处无法覆盖所有隐蔽的违规商家，也无法 从根源上铲除"重量造假"的生存土壤。 重庆大草原烤全羊南滨路钟楼店"36斤活羊烤完仅剩6.9斤"一事，在2月24日官方通报后尘埃落定。商家为 ...

36斤的活羊烤完上桌只剩6.9斤，近日发生在重庆的一则消费纠纷引发广泛关注。 据荔枝新闻报道，重庆的王女士反映，除夕夜带着家人在大草原烤全羊重庆南滨路店购买了1188元套 餐，经商家现场宰杀烤制后，成品羊肉复称仅6.9斤。面对质疑，商家回应称喜欢运动的羊和不喜欢运 动的羊，烤出来的分量也不一样，此番解释引发网友热议。 事件引发热议后，不少网友分析，36斤活羊宰杀烤制后成品也应保持在10—13斤，6.9斤的结果远超合 理损耗边界。所谓"运动羊""烤得干"，不过是商家为掩盖虚增重量、侵害消费者权益的谎言。 餐饮消费的核心底线是明码标价与消费透明，"活羊现烤"的卖点本就建立在食材真实、分量靠谱的基础 上。消费者现场监督称重、给羊做标记，正是出于对食材真实度的考量，而该商家一边营造"透明消 费"的假象，一边暗中通过非正常投喂虚增重量，这种行为不仅欺骗了消费者，更违反了消费者权益保 护法。 这起事件的调查处理，既是对商家不当行为的依法追责，也是市场监管较真履职的体现。市场监管部门 的处理举措，不仅为消费者讨回了公道，也向市场释放了"零容忍"整治消费欺诈的信号。一场看似简单 的重量争议，最终揭开了商家的造假行为，也考验着 ...

▲重庆的王女士反映，36斤的活羊烤完上桌只剩6.9斤。图/荔枝新闻 烤全羊加工过程存在正常损耗是常识，活羊宰杀去杂、高温烤制脱水都会带来重量下降，羊的个体差异 也会影响出肉率，但这些客观事实不应成为商家欺诈的遮羞布。 事件引发热议后，不少网友分析，36斤活羊宰杀烤制后成品也应保持在10—13斤，6.9斤的结果远超合 理损耗边界。所谓"运动羊""烤得干"，不过是商家为掩盖虚增重量、侵害消费者权益的谎言。 36斤的活羊烤完上桌只剩6.9斤，近日发生在重庆的一则消费纠纷引发广泛关注。 餐饮消费的核心底线是明码标价与消费透明，"活羊现烤"的卖点本就建立在食材真实、分量靠谱的基础 上。消费者现场监督称重、给羊做标记，正是出于对食材真实度的考量，而该商家一边营造"透明消 费"的假象，一边暗中通过非正常投喂虚增重量，这种行为不仅欺骗了消费者，更违反了消费者权益保 护法。 据荔枝新闻报道，重庆的王女士反映，除夕夜带着家人在大草原烤全羊重庆南滨路店购买了1188元套 餐，经商家现场宰杀烤制后，成品羊肉复称仅6.9斤。面对质疑，商家回应称喜欢运动的羊和不喜欢运 动的羊，烤出来的分量也不一样，此番解释引发网友热议。 这起事件的调查 ...

另据北京日报，在部分平台上，那艺娜的多个账号被禁止关注，视频已被清空，在搜索栏也已无法找到其账号。 每经编辑｜许绍航 宋思艰 近日，那艺娜被湖北襄阳襄城区撤销演出许可的消息经大量媒体转发后，引发网友关注。（此前报道） 据扬子晚报，多位网友在社交平台发文透露，自己收到了那艺娜演唱会的退票通知。大麦显示，那艺娜在长沙欧阳予倩大剧院和长沙达丰空间的两场演出 均取消，平台提示为"接主办通知，演出取消"，当前仅芜湖演出项目正常在架，已有三个档位显示售罄。以上演出主办方均为北京艺苗文化传媒有限公 司。 但在其他多个社交平台，那艺娜的账号仍可关注，视频也仍可播放。 随后有网友爆料称，那艺娜疑似已在国外视频平台开设账号。 据此前报道，2月12日，湖北省襄阳市襄城区政府官网发布襄城区行政审批局《关于撤销行政许可的公告》。 公告称，因北京艺苗文化传媒有限公司该场次演出参演艺人"那艺娜"（本名翟革英）属于劣迹艺人，违反了《演出行业演艺人员从业自律管理办法》第八 条规定，不得以演艺人员身份参与营业性演出，该局决定对北京艺苗文化传媒有限公司获批的营业性演出行政许可决定予以撤销。 那艺娜 资料图 图源：本人微博 公开资料显示，那艺娜本名 ...

转自：扬子晚报 近日，那艺娜被湖北襄阳襄城区撤销演出许可的消息经大量媒体转发后，引发网友关注。（此前报道） 据北京日报，那艺娜多个账号被禁止关注，视频已被清空，在搜索栏也已无法找到其账号。 而在其他多个社交平台，那艺娜的账号仍可关注，视频也仍可播放。 10:19 @ 367.6万 3204 3207.9万 粉丝 关注 获赞 那艺娜官方号 快手号: nana670707 □ 商业合作:hezuozixun123 娜姐一有时间就在这里直播 找我合作上聚星 ♀女 IP:湖北 ☑已实名 ot ( 粉丝团 店铺 加入享特权 18件商品 已关注 发私信 头点 @扬子晚报 10:18 @ all all (44) 592.4万 81.3万 866 粉丝 关注 获赞 快手号: 2678971340 □ 我是爱如火的原唱那艺娜 商务洽谈合作:18611154567 合作:hezuozixun123(不是本人,说明来意) 找我合作上聚星 ♀女 IP:意大利 ⊙已实名 粉丝团 直播动态 君郎 查看历史记录 加入享特权 1个群聊 已关注 发私信 ( 头景 @扬子晚报 随后有网友爆料称，那艺娜疑似已在国外视频平台开设账号。 部艺娜La ...

Core Viewpoint - The controversy surrounding Baicaowei's "nut gift box" highlights issues of misleading advertising and consumer trust, as the actual contents do not match the promotional claims [1][2] Group 1: Product Misrepresentation - The "nut gift box" advertised as weighing 958 grams contains only 33 grams of actual nuts, with the majority being beverages and snacks [1] - Baicaowei attributes the issue to the actions of a distributor, claiming that the product was never sold in their official store [1] - Despite this claim, similar gift boxes are still available for sale on Baicaowei's official flagship store, contradicting their explanation [1] Group 2: Consumer Rights and Legal Implications - Legal experts suggest that the misleading presentation of the gift box violates consumer rights and could be considered fraud, allowing consumers to demand compensation [1] - The misleading marketing practices, which emphasize high value while obscuring actual contents, are a long-standing issue in the consumer market [2] Group 3: Brand Responsibility and Trust - Baicaowei holds responsibility for the accuracy of promotions across both direct and authorized distribution channels [2] - The company's response of simply removing the problematic product does not address the underlying issues of misleading advertising and consumer trust [2] - For long-term brand sustainability, Baicaowei must improve transparency in product marketing and ensure accurate representation of product contents [2]

Core Insights - Fish oil has gained popularity among consumers for its cardiovascular health benefits, leading to high sales on e-commerce platforms, despite previous exposure of fraudulent practices involving plant oil being sold as high-purity fish oil [1][4] - Following the exposure, the involved teams have not ceased operations but instead rebranded and continued to promote similar products through live streaming [3][14] Product Quality Concerns - Testing of several popular "deep-sea fish oil" products revealed that three samples had Omega-3 content below 10%, with two samples showing no detectable levels of DHA, indicating a significant discrepancy from advertised claims [4][10] - The testing results for specific products showed alarming findings: "Drwissth" had 5.42% Omega-3, while "UHUHMI" had 4.58%, both far below the claimed values [8][10] - The regulatory standards set by the National Medical Products Administration require Omega-3 content in high-purity fish oil to be above 84%, while industry consensus suggests a minimum of 60% for dietary supplements [10] Marketing and Consumer Misleading - Influencers with large followings, such as Zhang Baige, have been promoting these fish oil products, often using misleading marketing tactics that imply health benefits without direct claims [4][13] - The same team behind previously exposed fraudulent products has continued to operate under new brands, maintaining similar marketing strategies and product offerings [14][16] Regulatory Environment - The State Administration for Market Regulation has introduced stricter guidelines for live e-commerce operators, prohibiting misleading claims about food products and requiring transparency in marketing [16][18] - Effective implementation of these regulations could significantly restrict gray marketing practices that mislead consumers regarding product efficacy and safety [18]

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights a case of consumer confusion and potential fraud on Alibaba's 1688 platform, where a customer mistakenly received a "海尓" (Hǎi ěr) brand refrigerator instead of a "海尔" (Hǎi ěr) brand, raising concerns about misleading advertising and brand infringement [1][4]. Group 1: Consumer Incident - A consumer purchased a refrigerator advertised as "海尔" for 358 yuan but received a "海尓" brand product instead, which is a look-alike brand [1]. - The Alibaba customer service acknowledged that the seller's actions constituted false advertising and stated that the platform would take action against the seller [1]. - The problematic store was no longer found on the 1688 platform as of January 14, but similar "海尓" products were still available [1]. Group 2: Brand Infringement and Response - Multiple "海尓" products were found on the 1688 platform, with one seller claiming to sell a "海尔" gas water heater, which was denied by Haier, stating it was a counterfeit product infringing on their rights [4]. - Haier has initiated monitoring and legal actions against such counterfeit products in collaboration with e-commerce platforms [4]. - A different seller misrepresented a "海尓" refrigerator as a "好太太" (Hǎo Tàitai) brand, lacking clear brand identification in the product details [4]. Group 3: Legal and Regulatory Implications - Legal experts indicated that the similar branding of "海尓" to "海尔" could mislead consumers and potentially constitute consumer fraud [5]. - The responsibility of the platform may depend on whether it fulfilled its obligations to monitor and rectify misleading listings [5]. - Consumers are advised to report such incidents through consumer associations, e-commerce platforms, or regulatory bodies for protection [5].

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the deceptive practices in live-streaming sales, where second-hand clothes are marketed as "new" or "samples," misleading consumers and violating regulations [2][6][9]. Group 1: Deceptive Practices - Many live-streaming hosts promote clothing items labeled as "micro-dirt" or "micro-defects" at extremely low prices, which are often second-hand clothes from questionable sources [2][4]. - Consumers are often misled by attractive marketing tactics, including persuasive language and lighting effects that conceal defects [4][5]. - The practice of selling second-hand clothes as new items is characterized as consumer fraud, with sellers using misleading terms to obscure the true condition of the products [6][8]. Group 2: Impact on Consumers - The target demographic for these sales often includes low-income individuals who are price-sensitive and may lack awareness of their consumer rights [8]. - Many consumers experience disappointment upon receiving items that are damaged or dirty, and face challenges in returning these products due to sellers' refusal to accept returns based on misleading policies [5][6]. Group 3: Regulatory Response - The State Administration for Market Regulation and the National Internet Information Office have issued guidelines to prevent false advertising and the sale of illegal goods in live-streaming [9][11]. - There is a call for increased enforcement and monitoring of the second-hand clothing supply chain to protect consumers and maintain market order [9][11]. - E-commerce platforms are urged to take responsibility for verifying seller qualifications and product information to ensure consumer safety [11].

Core Viewpoint - The incident highlights a case of consumer fraud in live-stream shopping, where a customer received chicks instead of the promised adult chickens, raising concerns about misleading advertising practices in the industry [2][3][5]. Group 1: Consumer Experience - A consumer ordered 15 live chickens for 149 yuan, but received 15 chicks instead, which were not suitable for consumption [2][3]. - The consumer was initially misled by the live-stream presentation, which showcased large chickens and claimed a direct sale from the manufacturer [2][3]. - After receiving the chicks, the consumer faced difficulties in returning them due to the seller's policy against returns for live animals, leading to a complaint and eventual refund from the platform [3][4]. Group 2: Industry Practices - Numerous similar live-stream sales were found on the platform, with many sellers using enticing pricing and vague descriptions to attract consumers [4]. - The promotional language used by various sellers was consistent, emphasizing low prices and large quantities without clear specifications on the actual product [4]. - Consumer comments indicated widespread experiences of being misled, with many reporting receiving chicks instead of adult chickens as advertised [4]. Group 3: Legal Implications - Legal experts stated that the seller's actions constituted fraud, warranting punitive compensation under consumer protection laws [5]. - The platform is also held accountable for failing to adequately verify the sellers and their promotional claims, indicating a lack of oversight in the live-stream shopping sector [5]. - Consumers are advised to document evidence of misleading advertisements and to assert their rights under consumer protection laws when faced with similar situations [6].