网上宣称可特价购买最新款苹果手机，线下交款时却被告知还需另付高额费用更新系统，提出退款 却遭百般阻挠……最终，消费者被迫购买了高于市场价的二手苹果手机或假冒苹果耳机。 经浙江省温州市龙湾区检察院提起公诉，近日，法院以强迫交易罪、销售假冒注册商标的商品罪、 虚假广告罪，判处被告人刘某等5人有期徒刑六年九个月至二年四个月不等，各并处罚金26万元至4.5万 元不等。目前判决已生效。 想捡便宜结果上当 僵持一段时间后，店员提议，可以用已支付的费用购买老款二手苹果手机，或将20%的违约金换成 一副"苹果蓝牙耳机"。 无奈之下，郑女士二人最终以699元的价格购买了一副"苹果蓝牙耳机"，才拿到5300元的退款。事 后，二人通过12315平台进行投诉，并于2023年11月15日向公安机关报了警。公安机关出警后，按照消 费纠纷进行处理。后来，公安机关接到多名消费者报警，察觉异常，于2024年1月联合市场监督管理局 进行调查。 2024年2月29日，公安机关立案侦查，发现类似的情况在全国多地发生。2024年4月，刘某等5人相 继被抓获归案。 虚假广告引流，强迫交易宰客 经查，2021年6月，刘某、范某和柴某甲合伙开了第一家线下手 ...

因一句广为流传的广告宣传语，"插座一哥"公牛集团股份有限公司（以下简称"公牛集团"， 603195.SH）陷入了"舆论旋涡"。 近日，多家媒体报道称，公牛集团对外宣传使用的"10户中国家庭，7户用公牛"广告语引发争议，中山 市家的电器有限公司（以下简称"家的电器"）销售人员认为，公牛集团上述广告语"大字吹牛、小字免 责"，存在误导性宣传。 据了解，公牛集团此前向家的电器发送了《律师函》。最新消息显示，公牛集团已正式起诉家的电器， 索赔金额达420万元。不过，12月16日，家的电器方面通过官微发布公开信并称："我们决定，坚决应 诉，绝不妥协。" 12月22日，公牛集团方面在回复《中国经营报》记者采访时表示："目前，我司已完成相关取证（工 作），案件已由法院正式受理。我们尊重司法流程，现阶段不便透露更多细节，相信法院会给出公正裁 决。" 从"口水战"升级为"法律战" 中经记者 方超 石英婧 上海报道 "10户中国家庭，7户用公牛"，公牛集团以此宣传凸显出其在国内插座市场中的领先地位。 不过，这句广告宣传语近期遭到了"同行"家的电器的质疑。企查查显示，家的电器经营范围涉及生产、 销售包括照明灯及其配件、电器开关、插 ...

Core Viewpoint - The live streaming account "Huli Youpin Hui" has been criticized for its marketing strategies targeting elderly consumers, using emotional manipulation and questionable product claims to drive sales [1][2][26]. Group 1: Marketing Strategies - The account employs a "mother-daughter" persona to create emotional connections with viewers, particularly those aged 50 and above, often using fabricated hardship stories to promote products [1][3][4]. - The hosts frequently mention scenarios that resonate with elderly viewers, such as "elderly people unable to place orders" to heighten the urgency and anxiety among the target audience [3][6]. - The marketing tactics include high price anchors followed by steep discounts, creating a perception of value while lacking transparency in pricing rationale [5][20][26]. Group 2: Product Claims and Compliance Issues - Products promoted, such as liquid calcium and coenzyme Q10, lack clinical data to support their health claims, and the information provided is often misleading or inconsistent [1][8][27]. - The live stream fails to disclose essential product information, including approval numbers and contraindications, violating consumer rights to informed choices [17][27]. - There are discrepancies between the advertised benefits of products and the actual regulatory approvals, raising concerns about compliance with advertising laws [11][26][27]. Group 3: Legal Implications - Legal experts have indicated that the live stream's practices may constitute false advertising and price fraud, violating multiple laws including the Advertising Law and Consumer Rights Protection Law [2][26][27]. - The significant price differences between advertised retail prices and actual sale prices suggest deceptive pricing strategies aimed at misleading consumers [20][26].

Core Viewpoint - Internet advertising platforms are reportedly extending the actual playback time of ads beyond the indicated duration, effectively "stealing" users' time [1][3][20]. Group 1: Findings from Video Platforms - A survey by Hongxing Capital found that platforms like Youku, Mango TV, and iQIYI have ads that play longer than the time displayed [3][20]. - On Youku, an ad marked as 119 seconds actually played for 123 seconds, resulting in a 4-second discrepancy [5][7]. - Mango TV's ad labeled as 80 seconds played for 83 seconds, leading to a 3-second overrun [8][10]. - iQIYI's ad marked as 120 seconds played for 123 seconds, indicating a 2-3 second excess [12][14]. Group 2: Responses from Platforms - Customer service from Youku acknowledged the issue but did not provide a clear resolution [7]. - Mango TV claimed that the discrepancy was due to loading and buffering times, asserting that the ad duration was aligned with the actual content [11]. - iQIYI's response suggested that users should rely on the front-end display, without addressing the timing issue directly [17]. Group 3: Legal Interpretations - Legal experts argue that the misrepresentation of ad durations constitutes false advertising and violates consumer protection laws [20][21]. - The discrepancy in ad timing can mislead consumers regarding the effective duration of the advertisement, infringing on their rights [21][22]. - The lack of clear units (like "seconds") in the countdown may lead to consumer confusion, further complicating the legal standing of these practices [22][23].

Core Viewpoint - Guizhou Huaiguo Wine Industry Co., Ltd. was fined 3,000 RMB for publishing false advertisements regarding its "Huaiguo 1915 Commemorative Wine," misleading consumers about the product's age [1][3][9]. Group 1: Company Actions - On November 2, 2024, the company authorized a promotional video on the WeChat video account "Xiao Ji Yang Wei," claiming the wine was "aged for over 10 years" [3][7]. - The actual production date of the "Huaiguo 1915 Commemorative Wine" was June 28, 2024, confirmed by the production company [3][7]. - The company sold 43 bottles of the wine at a price of 178 RMB per bottle, totaling 7,634 RMB in sales [3][7]. Group 2: Regulatory Findings - The Guizhou market supervision authority determined that the company's actions violated Article 28 of the Advertising Law of the People's Republic of China, constituting false advertising [3][9]. - The authority noted that the misleading advertisement significantly impacted consumer purchasing behavior [3][9]. - The company was penalized with a fine of 3,000 RMB, which is less than the potential maximum fine due to mitigating circumstances such as being a first-time offender and cooperating with the investigation [3][9][10]. Group 3: Evidence and Documentation - Evidence included video screenshots, sales records, and production contracts, confirming the false claims made in the advertisement [7][8]. - The company provided documentation proving the production date and compliance with regulations, which aided in the investigation [8][9]. Group 4: Company Background - Guizhou Huaiguo Wine Industry Co., Ltd. was established on February 18, 2022, and is located in Guiyang, Guizhou Province [11].

Core Viewpoint - Nintendo is suing accessory manufacturer Genki for allegedly revealing details about the Switch 2 console before its official release, claiming trademark infringement, false advertising, and unfair competition [1][3][4] Group 1: Legal Actions - Nintendo has filed a lawsuit against Genki, accusing the company of trademark infringement, false advertising, and unfair competition related to its planned sales of accessory products for the Switch 2 [1][3] - The lawsuit was prompted by Genki's claims of having a "replica" of the Switch 2 before its official announcement, which included features consistent with leaked information about the console [3][4] Group 2: Events Leading to the Lawsuit - In January, during CES 2025, Genki made headlines by claiming to have a physical replica of the Switch 2, which led to a confrontation between Nintendo's legal team and Genki at the event [3] - Following discussions with Nintendo, Genki closed its booth at CES just before the event concluded [3] Group 3: Specific Allegations - Nintendo alleges that Genki's CEO Eddie Tsai engaged in actions on social media that infringed on Nintendo's trademark rights, particularly in promoting Switch 2 accessories [4] - The lawsuit highlights that Genki released a promotional video on April 2, coinciding with Nintendo's announcement of the Switch 2's release date, which Nintendo claims was a deliberate act of false advertising [4]

Group 1 - The core message emphasizes the importance of consumer awareness and the need to resist misleading advertisements, particularly those claiming "zero sugar," "zero calories," and "no preservatives" without factual basis [1][2] - Regulatory authorities in Beijing, Tianjin, and Hebei have issued guidelines for advertisers to ensure that advertisements are truthful, legal, and aligned with socialist values and traditional culture [1] - Advertisers are required to take responsibility for the authenticity of their content, and there is a call for improved management systems for advertising verification and compliance [1] Group 2 - Consumers are advised to be cautious of misleading claims in popular products like weight-loss candies and beverages, and to verify the legitimacy of financial products and training institutions [2] - The elderly are specifically warned against fraudulent medical advertisements and exaggerated claims about traditional medicine and "miracle drugs" [2] - When dining out, consumers should prioritize establishments with proper hygiene and safety standards, and be vigilant about the quality of high-risk food items [2][3] Group 3 - Shoppers are encouraged to purchase products from reputable manufacturers and to check for necessary certifications, such as the CCC mark for electrical appliances [3] - For selecting new green tea as gifts, consumers can use a four-step method to assess quality, focusing on appearance, aroma, texture, and taste [3]