Hangzhou livestream pet-food advertising penalties — CN¥400,000 (2025-06-16)
A 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.
> 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).
Case facts
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Entity | A certain network-technology Co., Ltd. |
| 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 |
| 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) |
| Trigger | Hangzhou MRB routine online monitoring on 2025-02-27 |
| Penalty authority | Hangzhou Municipal Market Regulation Bureau |
| Decision date | 2025-06-16 |
| Combined penalty | CN¥400,000 |
Three violations
Violation 1 — "veterinarian recommended" on pet snack (feed-advertising violation)
- Product: a "pet snack freeze-dried dental stick for adult cats" (pet snack / pet feed).
- Claim on the detail page: "兽医推荐" (veterinarian recommended).
- 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."
- 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."
- Penalty: CN¥100,000. Untaxed revenue ≈ CN¥30,000; sales ≈ 1,900 packs; ad-publishing fee CN¥1,200.
Violation 2 — "sucrose-free high-protein" fermented milk (false advertising)
- Product: a fermented milk (food).
- Claim: "无蔗糖高蛋白零脂肪含益生菌" (sucrose-free, high-protein, zero-fat, with probiotics).
- Actual: 4.2 g protein per 100 g; NRV% = 8%.
- Standard: GB 28050—2011 App. C Table C.1 requires ≥ 20% NRV per 100 g for a "high-protein" (高蛋白) claim.
- Law: Advertising Law Art. 28(2)(2) (false advertising).
- Penalty: CN¥100,000. Untaxed revenue ≈ CN¥190,000; sales ≈ 26,000 cups; ad fee CN¥1,050.
Violation 3 — red-wine "drinking action" (advertising-conduct violation)
- Product: a dry red wine. Detail page showed an image of a person raising a glass and drinking.
- Law: Advertising Law provisions limiting alcohol-drinking imagery.
- Penalty: folded into the combined CN¥400,000.
Ad-fee "calculable / non-calculable" logic
Hangzhou MRB set out detailed reasoning on ad-fee calculation:
- Advertiser: designs/makes/publishes ads to promote goods or services.
- Ad operator: provides design, production, and agency services.
- Fee principle: an advertiser's ad fee = the total of design, production, agency, publishing, and endorsement costs.
- 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).
- Consequence: ad fee "uncalculable or clearly understated" → applies the CN¥100,000–200,000 bracket → aggravated circumstances pushed the penalty to the higher tier.
Comparison with other CN recall cases
| Dimension | CN Hebei Guopai 2025-09 (Case 1) | CN Hangzhou network-tech 2025-06 (this case) |
|---|---|---|
| Trigger | consumer complaint → admin penalty | regulator proactive online monitoring → admin penalty |
| Violation | process compliance (freeze-dried not re-tested) | ad-content violation (vet rec / false / drinking) |
| Legal basis | Feed & Feed-Additive Regulation Art. 40 + Pet Feed Admin Measures Art. 6 | Advertising Law Art. 21(2) + Art. 28 |
| Amount | CN¥15,000 | CN¥400,000 |
| Regulator | Xingtai Agriculture & Rural Bureau | Hangzhou Municipal Market Regulation Bureau |
Compliance boundary for "veterinarian recommended" claims in China
- Prohibited: recommendations or endorsements in the name or image of veterinarians / professionals / research bodies / academic institutions / industry associations / users.
- Allowed: only "structure/function claims" (e.g., "supports joint health", "contains probiotics").
- Pain point: consumers cannot verify "vet recommended" authenticity; e-commerce platforms struggle to verify entity qualifications.
- Lesson: even the four characters "兽医推荐" alone trigger Advertising Law Art. 21(2), with a CN¥100,000 floor penalty.
Source
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).
Companion topics: cn_hangzhou_pet_co_celebrity_650k_endorsement_2024 (celebrity endorsement, CN¥6.5M), cn_guopai_pet_food_15000_fine_20250918 (production-quality case).