Xinba sold 'bird's nest' that was mostly sugar water — and denied it before the tests

辛巴 (Xinba, born 辛有志) is one of China's biggest livestreamers, with tens of millions of followers on Kuaishou (快手); his company 辛选 (Xinxuan) builds its business on his personal recommendation. In October and November 2020 his team, including an apprentice known as 时大漂亮, sold an 'instant bird's nest' (即食燕窝) product under the brand 茗挚 (Mingzhi), marketing it as a premium health food.

Consumers and a well-known anti-fraud tester questioned whether the product was real bird's nest at all. Testing found it contained barely any of the nutrient that marks genuine bird's nest, and it was widely dismissed as 'sugar water' (糖水燕窝). Xinba's first response was to deny the claims and defend the product, which only intensified the uproar; he later admitted the promotion had been exaggerated and apologised.

Market regulators investigated and, on 23 December 2020, announced penalties: Xinba's company was fined ¥900,000 for misleading commercial promotion, and the brand-side company was fined ¥2 million and ordered to stop. Kuaishou banned Xinba's account for 60 days, as it did his apprentice's, and suspended about 27 other anchors on his team for 15 days. Xinba's team offered consumers '退一赔三' — a refund plus triple compensation — paying out tens of millions of yuan. The case became a landmark in holding livestream promoters, not just the brands they sell for, accountable for what they promote.

He denied the sugar-water finding first, then tests proved it; fined ¥900,000, banned 60 days, and paid tens of millions in refunds.

The product was sold on Xinba's personal endorsement, so when it proved to be sugar water, the failure landed on his credibility rather than on an anonymous seller.

His first move was to deny and defend, which turned a product complaint into a test of whether he could be trusted — and the test results made the denial indefensible.

Livestream commerce moves fast and checks little; a product can be in front of millions of buyers before anyone verifies what it actually contains.

The regulator treated the promoter as liable, not just the brand, establishing that a KOL who misrepresents a product answers for it the same way the seller does.

A livestreamer sells on trust; a fake product betrays the audience. Xinba's instinct to deny turned a product fault into a collapse of trust — and regulators fined the promoter, not just the brand.

Xinba returned to livestreaming after the 60-day ban, but the 'sugar-water bird's nest' case stayed attached to his name and was cited again in later controversies. Its lasting effect was on the industry: with other livestream scandals, it pushed regulators to tighten what hosts may claim and to treat promoters as responsible for the products they sell. For brands the lesson was the mirror image — borrowing a host's trust to move a product means borrowing their liability too, and a misrepresented product surfaced by one determined tester can cost a promoter tens of millions and a reputation.