“Check the reviews first” has become Gen-Z’s pre-shopping ritual. Yet when “third parties” script the data and turn side-by-side tests into stealth ads, the “guide to avoiding bad buys” can detonate as unfair competition.
In 2023 the Suzhou Intermediate Court (Jiangsu) handed down the final verdict in ohsunny (Wuxi Shimo Apparel) v. mijú (Suzhou Bumo E-commerce)—China’s first ruling to draw a bright legal line against bogus comparative reviews: fabricating figures = false advertising, trashing a rival to elevate yourself = unfair competition, and the brand secretly behind the reviewer is jointly liable.
1. The 90-Second Case Recap: How One “Scientific Review” Crashed
Little-Red-Book account “Bubu Reviews” (operated by Suzhou Bumo E-commerce) posted “8 Sun-Proof Jackets Battle-Tested”. Armed with a UV meter, the author measured UVA-block rates and concluded:
-
Brand A, ohsunny (Wuxi Shimo): “sun protection flops”;
-
Brand B, mijú (owned by …Bumo): “dominates the field”.
Posts + comment-section seeding sent mijú sales soaring. ohsunny re-tested the same batches at an independent lab and found:
-
Identical instrument, up to 30 % gap with the posted numbers;
-
No disclosure of test angle, light intensity, fabric folds;
-
The reviewer’s shareholder also holds mijú shares—never declared.
ohsunny sued for RMB 550 k. The court ruled: unscientific data + hidden affiliation = misleading consumers = false advertising. Damages: RMB 45 k and deletion of the post.
2. The Court’s Three-Step Test for “Review-Style False Advertising”
-
Data truthfulness – comparative tests must be performed under identical environments and conditions; otherwise they count as “fabricated facts”.
-
Transparency of interests – any shareholding or advertising fee tie-up between the account and a brand must be prominently disclosed; silence equals “concealment of material information”.
-
Competitive harm – if skewed figures steer consumers to the reviewer’s own product and dilute the plaintiff’s sales, damage is proven; no need for defamatory language.
The court stressed: “Even without openly attacking ohsunny, using fake numbers to lift mijú crosses the objectivity red line and falls under Article 8 of the Anti-Unfair-Competition Law: false or misleading commercial publicity.”
3. Industry Pain Points: When “Objectivity” Becomes a Business
-
Black-box data: same samples, different results—calibration, distance, temperature and humidity all hidden.
-
Traffic kickbacks: platforms charge per click and per sale; reviewers pocket ad fees plus sales commission.
-
Stealth affiliations: MCNs and brands hold cross-shareholdings while still claiming “independent reviewer”.
-
Reputation arbitrage: fake comparisons dent rival sales and boost one’s own search rank—negative SEO by another name.
4. After-Shock: Four Red Lines the Verdict Draws for Reviewers
-
Verify before publishing – keep raw data, test videos and lab reports for ≥ 3 years; open to third-party re-test at any time.
-
Disclose the money trail – shareholders, ad contracts, sample sources must appear at the top of the post or in an equally prominent spot.
-
Same-condition comparison – test environment, device model, batch number, operating steps must be logged in sync; vary one parameter, publish a correction.
-
Reversed burden of proof on negatives – once sued, the reviewer must first prove data authenticity; fail and the content is presumed false.
5. Compliance Playbook: What Brands, Platforms and Shoppers Should Do
Brands
-
Maintain a “reviewer whitelist”: demand stand-alone lab reports from MCNs.
-
Monitor key rivals; if numbers look off, notarise evidence within 48 h and fire off lawyer letters + platform takedown requests.
Platforms
-
Add “fake comparison” to the high-risk audit model; trigger re-review when multiple brands complain about the same post.
-
Make “commercial partnership” tag mandatory; untagged content is barred from traffic-pool recommendation.
Consumers
-
Look for the interest-declaration first; if none, scroll away.
-
Cross-check several reviews, focusing on test conditions, not conclusions.
-
Spot data fraud? Report to the platform and to hotline 12315 in tandem—crowd-source the supervision.
6. Epilogue: Give Reviews Back Their “Third Eye”
Reviews were born to cut consumers’ information costs with expertise and honesty, not to serve as a fig leaf for traffic monetisation. The Suzhou ruling tells the industry: data fraud and “trash-A-to-boost-B” marketing, however polished the copy, will not escape the legal magnifying glass.
Only when reviewers strap on the headbands of truth and transparency will brands dare to leave products to the market’s invisible hand, and shoppers keep faith in the mantra “check the review first”.
Next time you see a post titled “The Most Comprehensive Comparison on the Internet”, ask three questions before you like:
If every answer is no, send them this article:
A review is not an ad drama; false advertising ends in damages and fines.
