Live broadcast of imported perfume sales involves counterfeit products; consumers are required to prove their claims, and three enforcement response letters fail to resolve the dilemma | 3.15 Investigation

Holding three official response letters but unable to find an exit.

Consumer Maruko (pseudonym) told Red Star Capital Bureau that in January of this year, she purchased a bottle of imported perfume during a live broadcast on a short video platform. After inspection, she believed the product was not genuine and requested the seller to provide relevant qualifications. Further investigation revealed that both the live broadcast room and the company behind the shipping location lacked import and export qualifications. The live stream claimed overseas shipping, but during more than 29 broadcasts on the platform, the platform did not perform its regulatory duties.

Maruko believes the seller engaged in fraudulent sales and should be compensated three times the amount paid. However, both the seller and platform customer service stated that Maruko needed to provide a certification report verifying the authenticity of the perfume herself.

A lawyer said that consumers question whether the perfume is an imported product, and consumers are not obligated to provide testing certificates. If the seller cannot prove that the perfume is imported, and it is suspected of fraudulent sales, consumers have the right to demand “three times the refund.”

Bought imported perfume for 998 yuan, suspect it’s fake

Rights protection request: pay for testing myself

On March 5, Maruko told Red Star Capital Bureau that in January, she saw a live broadcast on a short video platform called “Mila Overseas - Juou Premium,” which was verified with a blue V badge. The account’s IP showed it was based in the United States, and the registered company was Hangzhou Juou E-commerce Co., Ltd. (hereafter “Hangzhou Juou”). The host claimed the products were all sourced abroad, and orders could enjoy Valentine’s Day discounts.

Screenshots provided by Maruko showed that the live broadcast was selling BYREDO (Chinese name “柏芮朵”), a Swedish fragrance brand, specifically the “No Man’s Land Rose” perfume. Maruko purchased this perfume for 998 yuan. A few days later, she checked logistics information and found the perfume was shipped from Guangzhou, from a store called Guangzhou Zhixin Beauty (hereafter “Guangzhou Zhixin”). She checked the business license and found that the scope of business did not include import and export trade.

After receiving the product, Maruko felt that the scent was inconsistent with her previous purchase from a counter, and the logo on the bottom of the bottle showed signs of peeling. On January 29, she requested platform intervention, initiated arbitration, and asked for a refund plus compensation three times the amount. The seller only offered a return and refund.

[Photo provided by interviewee]

On January 30, Maruko reported to the platform that the seller was suspected of false advertising and fraud, and requested penalties and compensation for consumers. She also asked the platform to review the seller’s live broadcast recordings and demanded the seller provide “overseas procurement vouchers” and “import customs declaration forms,” and issue written review conclusions. About an hour later, Guangzhou Zhixin’s store was shut down.

Subsequently, Maruko requested the platform to freeze and seize the seller’s deposit and funds, and to make an advance payment to her. Customer service from the platform said they could only process returns and refunds and offer a 100 yuan shopping voucher, or she could negotiate directly with the seller for compensation. Maruko told Red Star Capital Bureau that a senior complaint officer at the platform once said that because they could not prove the product was fake, the platform could not compensate her, and she needed to provide an authoritative testing report.

“To get an authoritative testing report, you need to send the product to a specialized testing center, which costs at least a thousand yuan, and the standards for testing products like perfume are very complex,” Maruko said.

On March 6, Red Star Capital Bureau contacted institutions such as Zhongxi Research Institute and Shaanxi Food and Drug Inspection Institute and learned that such tests are generally not open to private individuals.

On March 6, lawyer Pan Xiang from Guangdong Zhong’an Law Firm and a dispute arbitrator for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area told Red Star Capital Bureau that the “Consumer Rights Protection Law” stipulates that operators must provide truthful and clear answers to consumers’ inquiries about product quality. If a seller claims during a live broadcast that a perfume is an overseas imported product, they must ensure the perfume shipped is indeed imported. In response to consumer inquiries, sellers should provide proof of import sources, such as customs declaration forms, inspection certificates, and origin certificates. Since the consumer questions whether the perfume is not an imported product, they are not obligated to provide testing certificates. If the seller cannot prove the perfume is imported, and it is suspected of fraudulent sales, consumers have the right to demand “three times the refund.”

Zhao Liangshan, senior partner at Shaanxi Hengda Law Firm, believes that if a seller claims the perfume is imported from overseas, according to Article 20 of the “Consumer Rights Protection Law,” operators should fully and truthfully provide product information and not engage in false or misleading advertising. They are legally obliged to provide import compliance documents such as customs declarations, inspection and quarantine certificates, and purchase vouchers. Failure to do so constitutes a failure to provide proof. Under the rules for consumer rights protection evidence allocation, the initial evidence that the product does not match the description and the shipping origin is sufficient. It is unreasonable for the platform and seller to require consumers to produce authoritative testing certificates themselves, as this unfairly shifts the burden of proof and is not in line with legal requirements.

Two companies, four addresses

Seller lost contact after 29 broadcasts

After failing to resolve the issue with customer service, Maruko sent a query letter to the platform’s relevant department, but received no reply as of press time.

She then filed complaints with Hangzhou 12315 against Hangzhou Juou, Guangzhou 12315 against Guangzhou Zhixin, and Shanghai 12315 against the short video platform.

From February 2 to February 24, the Xiaoshan District Market Supervision Bureau in Hangzhou responded that they could not contact Hangzhou Juou, found no operators on-site, and had listed it as a business abnormality. The Nansha District Market Supervision Bureau in Guangzhou replied that they could not contact Guangzhou Zhixin, had also listed it as abnormal, and had sent a letter to the local platform authorities urging closure of the business. The Yangpu District Market Supervision Bureau in Shanghai responded that after mediation failed, the respondent explicitly refused to refund or compensate three times.

On February 28, Maruko received further reply from the Yangpu District Market Supervision Bureau, which verified that Guangzhou Zhixin’s registered after-sales address was actually in Anhui, and Hangzhou Juou’s certification address was in Hunan. They advised her to contact the 12315 offices in those jurisdictions and provided contact numbers for the verification information, but Maruko found the numbers unreachable.

Maruko believes that the platform has a regulatory obligation over live streams and shops selling cross-border products. Additionally, the platform’s blue V certification requires submission of business licenses, legal representative IDs, etc., which should be verified. As a form of qualification endorsement, blue V certification should entail stricter review.

On March 6, Red Star Capital Bureau noted that the account’s product showcase still exists but the live stream updates are hidden.

Zhao Liangshan pointed out that as an e-commerce platform, under Articles 27 and 38 of the “E-commerce Law,” the platform has the obligation to verify and register the identities and licenses of operators. If the platform knows or should know that a seller infringes on consumer rights and fails to take necessary measures, it bears joint responsibility. Furthermore, under the “Trial Measures for Online Live Marketing,” the platform should review, monitor, and assist in rights protection regarding the qualifications and marketing content of live stream operators. The fact that the involved seller lacks import and export qualifications indicates the platform failed to perform its review and regulatory duties according to law and should bear corresponding legal responsibility.

Pan Xiang also believes that even if the seller lacks import qualifications, they could purchase from importers and resell, so the platform may not be responsible.

Red Star News reporters: Yu Yao, Zhou Yi

Editor: Xiao Ziqi