{"topic_id":"cn_hangzhou_livestream_400k_fine_petfood_202506","category":"cn-recalls","context":"---\ntopic_id: cn_hangzhou_livestream_400k_fine_petfood_202506\ncategory: cn-recalls\ntitle: \"CN 杭州某网络科技 40 万元罚款 (2025-06-16) — 宠物零食\\\"兽医推荐\\\"违法+发酵乳\\\"无蔗糖高蛋白\\\"虚假+红酒饮酒动作\"\nlang: en\nsource: \"杭州市市场监督管理局 杭州市司法局 联合发布《网络带货主播从业领域典型案例》(2025-11), 案例 8 (案例编号见 PDF 第 26-31 页)\"\ndate_parsed: 2026-07-21\ntokens_estimated: 1050\nverification:\n  method: regex_loose_match_with_reference\n  claims: 9\n  passed: 9\n  date: 2026-07-21\nsource_document: \"China pet food recall notice\"\ncitation:\n  authority: \"MOA Announcement No\"\n  title: \"CN 杭州某网络科技 40 万元罚款 (2025-06-16) — 宠物零食\\\\\\\"兽医推荐\\\\\\\"违法+发酵乳\\\\\\\"无蔗糖高蛋白\\\\\\\"虚假+红酒饮酒动作\"\n  url: \"\"\n  retrieved: \"2026-07-21\"\n  ref: \"\"\n  doc_type: \"official PDF\"\n  needs_review: true\nauthority_tier: T1\nauthority_tier_basis: \"T1:cn-gov\"\nauthority_tier_date: 2026-08-04\n---\n\n# Hangzhou livestream pet-food advertising penalties — CN¥400,000 (2025-06-16)\n\nA typical case of unlawful pet-food livestream advertising in China: **one company absorbed three violations in a combined CN¥400,000 penalty** (three fines of CN¥100,000 each plus confiscated ad fees). The pet-snack \"veterinarian recommended\" claim directly triggered Article 21(2) of the Advertising Law.\n\n> Source: Hangzhou Municipal Market Regulation Bureau & Hangzhou Municipal Justice Bureau, *Typical Cases in the Field of Livestream Hosting* (2025-11), Case 8 (PDF pp. 26–31).\n\n## Case facts\n\n| Field | Detail |\n|---|---|\n| Entity | A certain network-technology Co., Ltd. |\n| Violation types | (1) \"veterinarian recommended\" claim on pet snack; (2) false \"sucrose-free high-protein\" claim on fermented milk; (3) image of a wine-drinking action on a red-wine page |\n| Legal basis | Advertising Law (《中华人民共和国广告法》) Art. 21(2) (feed/feed-additive ads) + Art. 28(2)(2) (false advertising) |\n| Trigger | Hangzhou MRB routine online monitoring on 2025-02-27 |\n| Penalty authority | Hangzhou Municipal Market Regulation Bureau |\n| Decision date | 2025-06-16 |\n| Combined penalty | CN¥400,000 |\n\n## Three violations\n\n### Violation 1 — \"veterinarian recommended\" on pet snack (feed-advertising violation)\n\n- Product: a \"pet snack freeze-dried dental stick for adult cats\" (pet snack / pet feed).\n- Claim on the detail page: **\"兽医推荐\"** (veterinarian recommended).\n- Law: Advertising Law (《广告法》) Art. 21(2) — feed/feed-additive advertisements may not contain \"…(2) recommendations or endorsements using the name or image of research institutes, academic institutions, technology-extension bodies, industry associations, or **professionals or users**.\"\n- Product-class basis: Pet Feed Administration Measures (《宠物饲料管理办法》) Art. 2(1) — \"pet feed means industrially processed products for direct pet consumption, including compound pet feed, premixed additive feed, and other pet feed, also called pet food.\"\n- Penalty: **CN¥100,000**. Untaxed revenue ≈ CN¥30,000; sales ≈ 1,900 packs; ad-publishing fee CN¥1,200.\n\n### Violation 2 — \"sucrose-free high-protein\" fermented milk (false advertising)\n\n- Product: a fermented milk (food).\n- Claim: **\"无蔗糖高蛋白零脂肪含益生菌\"** (sucrose-free, high-protein, zero-fat, with probiotics).\n- Actual: 4.2 g protein per 100 g; NRV% = 8%.\n- Standard: GB 28050—2011 App. C Table C.1 requires ≥ 20% NRV per 100 g for a \"high-protein\" (高蛋白) claim.\n- Law: Advertising Law Art. 28(2)(2) (false advertising).\n- Penalty: **CN¥100,000**. Untaxed revenue ≈ CN¥190,000; sales ≈ 26,000 cups; ad fee CN¥1,050.\n\n### Violation 3 — red-wine \"drinking action\" (advertising-conduct violation)\n\n- Product: a dry red wine. Detail page showed an image of a person raising a glass and drinking.\n- Law: Advertising Law provisions limiting alcohol-drinking imagery.\n- Penalty: folded into the combined CN¥400,000.\n\n## Ad-fee \"calculable / non-calculable\" logic\n\nHangzhou MRB set out detailed reasoning on ad-fee calculation:\n\n- **Advertiser**: designs/makes/publishes ads to promote goods or services.\n- **Ad operator**: provides design, production, and agency services.\n- **Fee principle**: an advertiser's ad fee = the total of design, production, agency, publishing, and endorsement costs.\n- **This case**: the entity was both advertiser and operator (its own business), with no settled internal fees; only fees paid to the publisher were calculable (1,200 + 1,050 + 450 = **CN¥2,700**, far below the CN¥200,000 threshold).\n- **Consequence**: ad fee \"uncalculable or clearly understated\" → applies the **CN¥100,000–200,000** bracket → aggravated circumstances pushed the penalty to the higher tier.\n\n## Comparison with other CN recall cases\n\n| Dimension | CN Hebei Guopai 2025-09 (Case 1) | **CN Hangzhou network-tech 2025-06 (this case)** |\n|---|---|---|\n| Trigger | consumer complaint → admin penalty | regulator proactive online monitoring → admin penalty |\n| Violation | process compliance (freeze-dried not re-tested) | ad-content violation (vet rec / false / drinking) |\n| Legal basis | Feed & Feed-Additive Regulation Art. 40 + Pet Feed Admin Measures Art. 6 | Advertising Law Art. 21(2) + Art. 28 |\n| Amount | CN¥15,000 | **CN¥400,000** |\n| Regulator | Xingtai Agriculture & Rural Bureau | Hangzhou Municipal Market Regulation Bureau |\n\n## Compliance boundary for \"veterinarian recommended\" claims in China\n\n- **Prohibited**: recommendations or endorsements in the name or image of veterinarians / professionals / research bodies / academic institutions / industry associations / users.\n- **Allowed**: only \"structure/function claims\" (e.g., \"supports joint health\", \"contains probiotics\").\n- **Pain point**: consumers cannot verify \"vet recommended\" authenticity; e-commerce platforms struggle to verify entity qualifications.\n- **Lesson**: even the four characters **\"兽医推荐\"** alone trigger Advertising Law Art. 21(2), with a CN¥100,000 floor penalty.\n\n## Source\n\n`pdf-raw/cn-recalls/hangzhou-2025-live-streaming-cases.pdf` (Hangzhou Municipal Market Regulation Bureau + Hangzhou Municipal Justice Bureau, *Typical Cases in the Field of Livestream Hosting*, 2025-11, PDF 15,485,638 bytes, Case 8 at pp. 26–31; Tavily extract backup 2026-07-21).\n\nCompanion topics: `cn_hangzhou_pet_co_celebrity_650k_endorsement_2024` (celebrity endorsement, CN¥6.5M), `cn_guopai_pet_food_15000_fine_20250918` (production-quality case).\n","sources":["MOA Announcement No — CN 杭州某网络科技 40 万元罚款 (2025-06-16) — 宠物零食\\\\\\\"兽医推荐\\\\\\\"违法+发酵乳\\\\\\\"无蔗糖高蛋白\\\\\\\"虚假+红酒饮酒动作 (retrieved 2026-07-21)"],"source":{"authority":"MOA Announcement No","title":"CN 杭州某网络科技 40 万元罚款 (2025-06-16) — 宠物零食\\\\\\\"兽医推荐\\\\\\\"违法+发酵乳\\\\\\\"无蔗糖高蛋白\\\\\\\"虚假+红酒饮酒动作","url":"http://www.samr.gov.cn/","retrieved":"2026-07-21","ref":"","doc_type":"official PDF","source_document":"China pet food recall notice","verification_file":"杭州市市场监督管理局 杭州市司法局 联合发布《网络带货主播从业领域典型案例》(2025-11), 案例 8 (案例编号见 PDF 第 26-31 页)"},"source_document":"China pet food recall notice","source_file":"杭州市市场监督管理局 杭州市司法局 联合发布《网络带货主播从业领域典型案例》(2025-11), 案例 8 (案例编号见 PDF 第 26-31 页)","trust":{"authority_tier":"T1","fidelity":"verbatim","license":null,"display_grade":"A"},"tokens_estimated":1050,"generated_at":null,"tip":"Use /api/v1/topics to discover more topics. /api/v1/nutrient for precise single-point queries. /api/v1/cross_compare for 2-3 standard comparisons."}