The encyclopedia · Advertising & PR · Marketing decision · 2025-06-28
Proya sold Ruby Cream as 'anti-aging' — the registered claim only allows 'anti-wrinkle'
Proya's Ruby Cream 3.0 pages promised 'anti-aging', but the regulator doesn't allow the term and its filed claim is only 'anti-wrinkle' — exposed in June 2025.
Proya · 2025-06-28
What happened
Proya's Ruby Cream 3.0, launched in 2023, was a hit: by June 2025 it had sold more than 700,000 units on Tmall and topped the brand's face-cream repurchase list. Its own store page and livestreams described the product as opening 'a new era of anti-aging' and 'scientific anti-aging technology'.
Chinese cosmetics rules draw a hard line: the National Medical Products Administration's efficacy-claim rules list 20 allowed claims, and 'anti-aging' (抗老) is not among them — 'anti-wrinkle', 'firming' and 'soothing' are. When media checked the product's filed efficacy, it did not include 'anti-aging': Southern Metropolis found only 'anti-wrinkle', while others listed moisturising and soothing.
In late June 2025 three outlets — China Youth Daily, cnr.cn and Southern Metropolis Daily — ran investigations. They showed the brand's own store used 'anti-aging' while the flagship store used 'anti-wrinkle' for the same product, and that livestream hosts still answered 'anti-aging' when asked.
No fine against Proya has been reported, but the same claim has already drawn penalties: Linsenxuan was fined ¥21,234 by a Beijing regulator for 'anti-aging' wording, and a Shanghai cosmetics company was fined ¥21,000 in February 2025. Turning a 700,000-unit bestseller into the face of an overclaim put the trust gap on show.
Why it happened
- Claiming a benefit the regulator does not even list made the brand's flagship product the example of an overclaim
- Letting store pages and livestreams run 'anti-aging' while the filed claim was only 'anti-wrinkle' invited a media takedown
- Keeping a term that had already drawn fines showed the brand was betting regulators would not notice
The lesson
Don't sell a cosmetic with a claim the regulator doesn't list — Proya touted 'anti-aging' for Ruby Cream when filings only allow 'anti-wrinkle', and media turned its bestseller into a broken claim.
Aftermath
Proya did not immediately respond to the June 2025 investigations. The exposure put a hero product — more than 700,000 units sold on Tmall — in a national debate over the disallowed 'anti-aging' claim. Linsenxuan was fined ¥21,234.5 for 'anti-aging' wording, and a Shanghai firm was fined ¥21,000 in February 2025. Because 'anti-aging' is not among the 20 approved efficacy claims, cosmetics using it risk an Advertising Law violation and false-advertising exposure. No regulator had fined Proya itself, leaving the episode a trust risk, not a confirmed penalty.
Sources
- 腾讯新闻转南方都市报 — 珀莱雅红宝石面霜3.0'抗老'宣称引关注:备案功效仅含'抗皱' (2025-06-28)
- 央广网 — 珀莱雅红宝石面霜3.0被质疑'抗老'宣传与备案不符 (2025-06-27)
- 中国青年网 — 珀莱雅红宝石面霜宣称'抗老'被质疑 (2025-06-27)
spotted an error? The club wants to know.
More like this
An affair allegation cut Prince Chiu's brand deals within 48 hours
A family scandal emptied Yu Shuxin's ad portfolio — one brand at a time
Estée Lauder fined ¥2.38m for 'younger by 77%' claims on its 小棕瓶 serum
Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →

Comments · 0
Sign in to join the comments.