Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Marketing & Brand · Marketing decision · 2026

Review-KOL 老爸评测 sold the fake 'Australian' supplement its reviews should have caught

CCTV exposed 'Australian' supplement 优思益 as a fake brand in April 2026; reviewer 老爸评测, which had sold it, apologized and offered refund-plus-triple.

老爸评测 (Dad's Review) · 广州雅拉源健康产业有限公司 (Guangzhou Yarra Source) · 2026-04-02

What happened

On April 1, 2026, CCTV's consumer program exposed 优思益 (Yousiyi), a supplement brand claiming a 2010 Melbourne founding and 'Australian precision nutrition' for families. Its declared Melbourne address was an auto-repair shop; the products were made by factories in Anhui and Guangzhou and shipped through bonded warehouses to look imported. The brand's lutein eye-care capsules, priced near ¥300 a bottle, had topped the Tmall and Douyin category charts, with over four million bottles sold through nearly two thousand accounts — including stars Zhang Xiaohui, Li Ruotong and Ming Dao.

Among the sellers was 老爸评测 (Dad's Review), a product-review institution whose entire brand was built on 'professional, neutral, trustworthy' testing. The marketing company that orchestrated the fake brand, Hangzhou Suoxiang, told investigators the essence of the business: 'The company is from Guangzhou, the product is from Guangzhou — we packaged it as Australian.' On April 2, 老爸评测 apologized and promised buyers refund-plus-triple compensation, a standard that acknowledged responsibility even as its credibility took the hit.

The fallout spread across live commerce: Dong Yuhui's 与辉同行 room, which had sold an estimated ¥10–25 million of the products, apologized days later with a refund offer; other accounts promised refunds plus triple or full refunds with return shipping. The brand said it was 'at the edge of collapse' and unable to handle after-sales; regulators summoned Douyin, Taotian and Xiaohongshu. For 老爸评测 the cost was not money but its core asset: the neutrality that made its reviews worth anything.

Why it happened

  • The reviewer sold what it was built to vet: a fake-brand supplement passed through the same channel that certified other products, so the endorsement and the verdict became indistinguishable.
  • The model priced 老爸评测's neutrality as a marketing asset but never tested the supply chain behind its live commerce — the health food it should have screened hardest lacked the blue-hat certification.
  • Compensation after exposure repairs buyers' wallets, not trust — refund-plus-triple acknowledged liability while the positioning that produced the failure stayed unchanged.
What it costTrust collapse in a review brand; refund-plus-triple payoutscostly

The lesson

An endorsement channel and a certification channel must not be the same face — a reviewer who sells what it reviews sells its verdict, and no refund repairs that.

Aftermath

优思益 said it could no longer handle after-sales, leaving refunds to the platforms and sellers; regulators summoned Douyin, Taotian and Xiaohongshu over the affair. 老爸评测's apology and refund-plus-triple promise could not restore the neutrality that had been its whole value proposition, and the case joined a 2025–2026 series of fake foreign brands exposed in Chinese live commerce — at least eight, including several Australian and American ones, in the year before.

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 →