Two companies — boxXXX of Tokyo's Chiyoda ward and Beiiiii of Fukuoka — sold a men's underwear product called 'NOMORE' online for 1,980 yen per item, advertising that it would prevent up to 0.2 litres of urine from leaking out. boxXXX ran the claims from March 2025 to March 2026; Beiiiii ran the same copy from March to June 2025.
On 28 April 2026 the Consumer Affairs Agency issued administrative orders to both under Article 7(1) of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations, finding a superiority misrepresentation (Article 5(1), 優良誤認): the leakage-prevention claim had no reasonable basis. boxXXX submitted materials that failed to substantiate it; Beiiiii submitted nothing at all — and had received its ad copy from boxXXX in the first place.
Both companies said they would take the order seriously and work to prevent recurrence. The case shows the regulator treating a health-adjacent claim — a precise, testable number attached to a body function — as needing real evidence, not marketing language.
The regulator ordered the claims stopped because the precise 0.2-litre promise had no test behind it, and one seller copied the other's unproven ad.
The ads promised a precise, testable outcome — 'prevents 0.2 litres of leakage' — and the sellers had no test behind it
The same unproven copy was shared between two sellers, so one weak evidence base produced two orders
Beiiiii submitted no materials at all, making the order the default answer to an unclaimed promise
Specific numbers sell a claim's credibility — and put the burden of proof on the seller. A precise promise with no test behind it is the fastest route to a 優良誤認 order.
Both companies accepted the orders and committed to preventing recurrence. The CAA published the two orders on 28 April 2026, and the case circulated in Japanese media (Asahi, Kyodo) as an example of enforcement reaching small online-only sellers who borrow each other's ad copy rather than commissioning evidence.
FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE