Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Sales & Retail · Marketing decision · 2025

A private livestream sold elderly viewers 'longevity wine' as a cure — ¥250,000 fine

Ahuan Network built a website just to livestream two products to older viewers as disease cures it couldn't back up — Suzhou's regulator fined it ¥250,000.

Ahuan Network Technology

What happened

Ahuan Network Technology (阿换网络科技) built its own website specifically to run private-domain livestreams — broadcasts reached through a link shared in a WeChat group or similar closed channel rather than a public platform's feed, where a regulator or a skeptical stranger might stumble across the pitch. The company hired outside hosts to present two products to an audience skewed toward middle-aged and older viewers: '君仙谷' longevity wine and a ganoderma-spore-oil supplement capsule, both credited on-air with curing disease.

China's advertising and anti-unfair-competition law treats a disease-cure claim as a category its own: unlike a vague wellness claim, it requires evidence the seller can produce on demand. Ahuan's hosts made the claim but, when regulators investigated, the company could not produce anything backing it up — the pitch had outrun any evidence for it from the start.

The private-domain format was itself doing marketing work: a closed WeChat-adjacent channel reads as a trusted circle rather than an open ad, which is part of why regulators had flagged this structure — free samples to build trust, urgency to create anxiety, then an unverifiable cure claim to close the sale — as a recurring pattern in elder-targeted fraud. Suzhou's Gusu district market regulator fined Ahuan ¥250,000 in 2025, one of seven cases the national market regulator named that October as examples of the pattern.

Why it happened

  • A disease-cure claim is its own legal category precisely because it's the claim most likely to move a buyer — the law requires evidence for it before it airs, not after an investigator asks.
  • A closed channel doesn't just dodge a wide audience's skepticism — it removes the public correction (reviews, coverage, a stranger who's seen the scam) that might otherwise reach the buyer first.
What it cost¥250,000 fineembarrassing

The lesson

A claim strong enough to move a wary buyer is strong enough to draw regulatory scrutiny — evidence has to exist before the pitch airs, not get assembled after an investigator asks for it.

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →