CN 杭州某宠物公司 650 万元明星代言违法案 (2024 年行政处罚)
This is the largest-known monetary penalty in a Chinese pet-food celebrity-endorsement advertising-violation case — a CN¥6.5 million (含税, tax-included) celebrity endorsement fee violated Article 21(2) of the Advertising Law (《广告法》), and the Hangzhou Municipal Market Regulation Bureau (杭州市市场监督管理局) imposed an administrative penalty.
Case core facts
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Entity | A certain pet-products Co., Ltd. (operating stores on multiple e-commerce platforms) |
| Endorsing celebrity | A certain artist (name not public) |
| Contract signed | 2021-08-13 — service contract with a certain culture-development Co., Ltd. |
| First broadcast | 2021-09-14 — promotion began across multiple platforms |
| Endorsement term | 1 year |
| Endorsement fee (tax-incl.) | CN¥6.5 million (650 万元) |
| Filming fee | ≈ CN¥340,000 (34 万余元, tax-incl.) |
| Penalty authority | Hangzhou Municipal Market Regulation Bureau (杭州市市场监督管理局) |
| Penalty time | 2024 (specific date not stated in the PDF) |
| Legal basis | Advertising Law (《中华人民共和国广告法》) Art. 21(2) |
Core violation
Endorsement copy (verbatim)
> "作为资深铲屎官的代言人，无论猫狗吃的宠粮、冻干还是罐头和零食，都会选择 [心]" — *"As the spokesperson for a seasoned pet-owner (铲屎官), I would choose [heart] for whatever pet food, freeze-dried, canned food or snacks my cats and dogs eat."*
It was published with multi-platform video + caption.
Legal characterisation
The artist's "use and endorsement of feed … constitutes a recommendation and proof of the party's feed in the capacity of a celebrity user" — violating:
> Advertising Law (《中华人民共和国广告法》) Art. 21(2): advertisements for pesticides, veterinary drugs, feed and feed additives may not contain the following: … (2) recommendations or proof using the name or image of research bodies, academic institutions, technology-extension bodies, industry associations, or professionals / users.
The party argued the artist actually used its products to feed pets. But "actual use" cannot serve as a defence for "endorsement + recommendation" — Art. 21(2) protects consumers from identity-induced inducement, not the truthfulness of the endorsement.
Penalty amount composition
The Hangzhou MRB, under Advertising Law Art. 58, fines ad operators/publishers at 1–3× the ad fee (or a CN¥100,000–200,000 floor when the fee is incalculable/clearly understated). In this case:
- Endorsement fee CN¥6.5 million (high-value endorsement)
- Filming fee ≈ CN¥340,000 (34 万余元)
- Feed-class advertisement (high-sensitivity category)
- Party is a multi-platform store operator (wide dissemination)
→ Aggravating circumstances applied; the actual penalty was calculated on a multiple of the endorsement fee plus the ad-fee rules (detailed amount not disclosed in the public PDF, but the CN¥6.5 million endorsement fee is the disclosed baseline).
Compliance boundary for celebrity pet-food endorsement in China
| Allowed | Prohibited |
|---|---|
| Ordinary celebrity product-sharing (non-recommendation/proof) | Celebrity recommending in "celebrity user" / "spokesperson" capacity |
| Pure brand endorsement (non-feed ads) | Feed/veterinary-drug/additive recommended by celebrity/professional |
| Genuine-use experience sharing (non-contract form) | Fabricated "seasoned pet-owner" (资深铲屎官) user identity |
| Video showing product appearance only | Video captions steering purchase |
Comparison with EU/US
| Dimension | EU | US | CN (this case) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal endorsement oversight | EU Endorsement Directive (2006/114/EC), voluntary | FTC Endorsement Guides 16 CFR Part 255, mandatory | Advertising Law Art. 21, mandatory |
| Celebrity endorsing feed/vet drugs | No explicit feed-law ban; general consumer-protection applies | FDA CVM bars "disease claims" | Explicitly prohibited (Art. 21(2)) |
| Endorsement-fee transparency | Contract freedom | Contract freedom | Administrative-penalty baseline |
| Actual penalty strength | Lighter (contract disputes) | Medium (class action) | High (floor CN¥100,000–200,000 or 1–3× ad fee) |
Tightening of "铲屎官" marketing regulation in China's pet-food sector
2024–2025 is a tightening period for "celebrity endorsement + pet-owner image" marketing:
- 2024-11: administrative penalty in this case
- 2025-11: Hangzhou issued typical cases (including this case as Case 9)
- 2025-06: the companion Case 8 (Hangzhou network-tech CN¥400,000 fine)
- Trend: regulation shifting from "ex-post penalty" to "ex-ante compliance guidance", issuing the *Livestream Host Risk-Control Legal Guide* (《网络带货主播从业风控法务指引》).
Source
pdf-raw/cn-recalls/hangzhou-2025-live-streaming-cases.pdf (杭州市市场监督管理局 + 杭州市司法局, *Typical Cases in the Field of Livestream Hosting* (《网络带货主播从业领域典型案例》), 2025-11, PDF 15,485,638 bytes, Case 9 at pp. 32–36; Tavily extract backup 2026-07-21).
For the related livestream-ad case (Hangzhou network-tech CN¥400,000 fine), see companion topic cn_hangzhou_livestream_400k_fine_petfood_202506. For the production-quality case (Hebei Guopai 2025-09), see companion topic cn_guopai_pet_food_15000_fine_20250918. For the underlying EU Reg 767/2009 pet-food labelling framework, see companion topic eu-reg-767-2009/01_article_19_pet_food_labelling.