I. The Consultation Paper Calls Out Ultra-Claims
On 10 June 2025 the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) released the Draft Measures for the Supervision and Administration of Live-Stream E-Commerce. Articles 27 and 28, for the first time, brand “false or misleading price comparisons” as false advertising and explicitly list ultra-claims such as “lowest on the entire web” and “year-lowest.” A streamer who cannot produce verifiable third-party price evidence will be deemed to violate Article 28 of the Advertising Law; if the pitch also piggy-backs on someone else’s trademark or patent, it can trigger simultaneous liability under the Trademark Law, Patent Law and Anti-Unfair-Competition Law.
II. Real Judgments: Three Sentences Cost a Streamer 1.2 Million Yuan
-
Trademark Infringement—“GUCI Same Style” Case
In November 2024 the Guangzhou Internet Court (Case No. 2024 Yue 0192 Min Chu 34××) ruled that a top-tier streamer used “GUCI same style” and “factory overstock” 47 times across eight live sessions to sell 199-yuan handbags. The court found trademark infringement and false advertising, ordering the streamer and the MCN agency to pay Gucci 1.2 million yuan jointly and to publish a front-page apology for 15 consecutive days. One word—“same style”—was enough to slam into Article 57 of the Trademark Law.
-
Patent Hype—“Nobel-Prize Whitening Pen” Case
March 2025, Hangzhou Internet Court (Case No. 2025 Zhe 0192 Min Chu 12××): a streamer marketed an ordinary LED cold-light device as “the only patented product authorized by a Nobel laureate in medicine,” citing an expired design-patent number. The court held this to be false commercial promotion under AUCL Article 8 and imposed the maximum statutory fine of 800,000 yuan. The word “patent” is not an advertising adjective; falsely claiming an unlicensed patent is banned by Article 12 of the Advertising Law.
-
Bogus Price Comparison—“7,980-yuan Liquor for Only 998” Case
December 2024 Beijing market regulators cracked down on a live stream where the merchant first listed a liquor at 7,980 yuan as bait, then let the streamer slash the price to 998 yuan live. The authorities labeled it price fraud; the company received an administrative warning and a 300,000-yuan fine.
III. Platforms’ Joint-Liability Net Is Tightening
Identity Piercing: In the 2023 Hangzhou Internet Court “virtual streamer” case, both the AI avatar developer and the operating agency were held jointly liable; the platform was administratively punished for failing to take the content down promptly.
Algorithm Fault: An MCN used algorithms to inflate view counts; the court applied a presumption of fault against the platform for false advertising generated by its recommendation algorithm.
Off-Platform Deals: Kuaishou streamer Xu lured users to buy counterfeit phones via WeChat. The court ordered Xu to pay treble damages, but the platform—having banned off-platform transactions in advance and suspending Xu’s account for 15 days—escaped joint liability.
Conclusion: If a platform fails to fulfill the trilogy of “qualification review + real-time monitoring + post-event evidence preservation,” it will form a “joint-liability community” with the streamer and MCN.
IV. 3×3 Compliance Checklist: How to Say Ultra-Claims Lawfully
Pre-stream
-
Build a triple-keyword library covering trademarks, patents and prices; have AI pre-review scripts.
-
Integrate third-party price-verification APIs (e.g., Manmanbuy, SMZDM) for real-time checks.
-
Subject high-follower streamers to pre-cleared talking points and keep an audit trail.
During stream
-
Speech-recognition pop-ups flag ultra-claims like “lowest ever” or “sole patent” within 30 seconds.
-
Provide a one-click “submit evidence” button for instant upload of authorization letters or patent certificates.
-
Display comparable-price links on the live screen so viewers can verify with one tap.
Post-stream
-
Offer a 7×24 green channel for after-sales claims, with first-instance compensation capped at 10,000 yuan.
-
Use blockchain to immutably store live-stream video and transaction data for traceability.
-
Operate a “red/black” list: blacklist dishonest streamers and boost traffic for compliant ones.
Conclusion
Ultra-claims are not traffic magnets; they are infringement triggers. With only 90 days left until the draft measures take effect, the platforms that finish their compliance infrastructure first will be the ones that safely take off in the next wave of live-stream dividends.
