The encyclopedia · Software & IT · Operational decision · 2025
Xiaoe sold livestream rooms with no health-ad filter — ¥360,000 and a rectification order
Xiaoe sold private-domain livestream tools from ¥12,800 a year but filtered nothing for food or health claims, so streamers sold ordinary food as medicine.
小鹅通 · 深圳小鹅网络技术有限公司 · 2025-11-14
What happened
小鹅通, run by Shenzhen Xiaoe Network Technology, sells private-domain livestream e-commerce as a tool: merchants pay an annual fee starting at ¥12,800 to run their own live rooms, and the platform layers on traffic features — a red-packet-rain attraction and the option to hide the live viewer count when a room is thin. Reporters signing up as merchants were even offered a scripted 'performance' for a service fee of around ¥15,000 plus a ¥50 domain name.
The gap was upstream of all of it. Until 30 June 2025 the company's content-management rules carried a sensitive-word library but no vocabulary bank covering health-supplement and food false advertising, and no terms for disease prevention or treatment. A large number of merchants accordingly livestream-sold ordinary food while making claims it could not back, and consumers were harmed.
On 14 November 2025 the Shenzhen market regulator fined the company ¥360,000 (深市监处罚〔2025〕12号) and ordered it to rectify within a time limit, ruling it had breached Article 38(1) of the E-Commerce Law — the platform's obligation to review operators' qualifications and to guarantee consumer safety — and was penalized under Article 83. The case was published among the SAMR's typical livestream-ecommerce enforcement examples on 28 November 2025.
The lesson the regulator drew is structural: a platform that charges for the rails others sell on cannot treat itself as a neutral tool. The person selling ordinary food as medicine into crowded rooms is the merchant; the platform still owns the claims.
Why it happened
- The platform sold the tools to deceive: until mid-2025 it had no vocabulary library for food or health false claims, so the filter a fake room needed simply did not exist.
- The revenue model monetized the risk — subscription plus traffic features like red-packet rain and a hideable viewer count lowered the cost of running a thin, scripted room.
- The company read itself as a neutral tool rather than a platform operator with Article 38 duties, so it built for convenience and left the statutory screening obligation unowned.
The lesson
If you operate the rails others sell on, you own the claims they make. A platform that filters nothing for food or health ads is selling deception — build the screening before you charge.
Aftermath
The Shenzhen regulator fined the company ¥360,000 and ordered rectification within a time limit. The case was published among the State Administration for Market Regulation's typical livestream-ecommerce enforcement examples on 28 November 2025, signalling that platform-liability screening for health and food claims is now a standard enforcement target rather than a corner case.
Sources
spotted an error? The club wants to know.
More like this
A livestreamer's pad brand hit ¥75M/month — then buyers found black debris sealed inside
Zhuben's livestream promised hair growth and period fixes — regulators checked the filings
Xiaoyangge fined ¥68.9M for selling 'Hong Kong' mooncakes made in Guangzhou
Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →
Comments · 0
Sign in to join the comments.