Controversies

Xiaoxiandun fined 200,000 yuan for publicity inconsistent with facts on ingredients and origin

The Beijing Chaoyang District Market Supervision Administration determined that Xiaoxiandun's e-commerce publicity involved 11 false or misleading items, including ingredient composition, place of origin, and certification information, fined it 200,000 yuan, and ordered it to stop the relevant advertising. The company said it had conducted a full inspection and rectification. Progress: administrative penalty. Entity involved: Beijing Xiaoxiandun E-commerce Co., Ltd.

Fined 200,000 yuan over 11 false publicity claims

The Beijing Chaoyang District Market Supervision Administration found that Xiaoxiandun had 11 false or misleading publicity claims, including mixing bird's nest strips into ingredients, misleading labeling of dry bird's nest content, inaccurate origin traceability information, and baseless "zero additive" claims. It fined the company 200,000 yuan and ordered it to stop publishing illegal advertisements and eliminate the impact; the company said it had rectified the issues.

Authorities fine Xiao Xiandun 200,000 yuan over alleged false advertising

Fine or penalty

Authorities fined the bird's-nest brand Xiao Xiandun 200,000 yuan for false advertising, according to the report.

Xiaoxiandun sues Jiamingjia over alleged harmful statements

Lawsuit filed

Xiaoxiandun said it had filed an infringement-liability lawsuit against Jiamingjia and its controlling shareholder over statements concerning their manufacturing relationship and production qualifications. According to the report, the case was still under trial at the time. The dispute centered on remarks about the two companies' commissioned manufacturing relationship and production licensing qualifications, which Xiaoxiandun characterized as untrue. No further details on the claims, amounts, or outcome were provided in the source.

Xiaoxiandun responds to production qualification allegations

Company response

Xiaoxiandun said claims that it had improperly used Jiamingjia's name and food production license were seriously untrue. The company said it had a formal contract manufacturing relationship with Jiamingjia and stated that it had filed a tort liability lawsuit against Jiamingjia and its controlling shareholder; the case was pending.