In recent years, China's health supplement market has continued to develop rapidly. According to industry statistics, the current market size has exceeded 200 billion yuan. However, behind the market prosperity, the issue of ordinary foods falsely advertising health benefits has become increasingly prominent. The annual report of the China Consumers Association points out that complaints of this kind have increased by 63% compared to the previous year, among which cases involving medical claims such as "blood sugar reduction" and "detoxification" account for nearly 80%. These products often disguise themselves with a "technological facade" and precisely target people anxious about their health ; meanwhile, middle-aged and elderly consumers, due to insufficient awareness of the "Blue Hat" label (awareness rate only 42%), are more likely to fall into carefully designed verbal traps. Recently, a case involving a technology company suspected of false advertising of health supplements ( involving an amount of 450,000 yuan ) has attracted widespread attention in the industry. This case reflects typical legal risks in current food marketing and advertising.

[Case]

A certain technology company organized promotional meetings where staff claimed to attendees that their ordinary food products had health benefits such as "detoxification" and "blood sugar reduction" , and played product experiment videos on site, claiming that " blood sugar indicators significantly improved after 7 days of consumption ". The promotional brochures they distributed were marked with phrases like "removes blood toxins" and "regulates blood lipids" , and they also invited so-called " health consultants " to hold lectures, implying that the products could replace medicine.

Consumers Mr. Li and Ms. Zhang believed these claims and successively purchased more than 20 products from the company, including candies, solid beverages, and fruit and vegetable juice drinks, paying a total amount of over 450,000 yuan. Later, the two consumers found that the purchased products were only ordinary foods, which neither had registration or filing as health foods nor possessed the claimed effects. They therefore sued the company for fraud, requesting the court to order the defendant to refund all payments and pay triple compensation according to the relevant provisions of the Consumer Rights Protection Law of the People's Republic of China.

During the litigation, the defendant company argued that it never officially advertised the products as having health benefits, and that the consumers' misunderstanding came from statements by individual staff on site, thus not constituting fraud, and only agreed to bear corresponding responsibilities within a reasonable scope. Later, through court mediation, considering factors such as the market price and usage of the involved goods, both parties agreed to compromise and signed a mediation agreement in which the defendant company agreed to refund 380,000 yuan to the plaintiffs within a time limit.

Is it false advertising to promote ordinary foods as having specific health benefits? How can consumers protect their rights when making purchase decisions based on misunderstandings?

Answer: The court held that: First, regarding whether the defendant constitutes false advertising, according to the facts ascertained in the trial, the defendant company organized promotional meetings where its staff claimed to unspecified consumers that ordinary foods had health benefits such as "detoxification" and "blood sugar reduction." Although the defendant argued that it was the behavior of individual staff, according to Article 170 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, acts performed by staff within their authority in the name of the legal person shall be recognized as acts of the legal person. As the promotional meeting was an official marketing activity organized by the defendant, the content presented by its staff should be regarded as the expression of the defendant company's intent.

Second, regarding the identification of fraudulent behavior. According to Article 20 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law of the People's Republic of China, operators have a legal obligation to truthfully inform consumers of the true situation of goods. In this case, the defendant promoted ordinary foods as products with specific health benefits, causing consumers to make purchase decisions based on misunderstandings, which meets the constitutive elements of fraud as stipulated in Article 55 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law of the People's Republic of China.

Third, regarding liability. Article 73 of the Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China clearly stipulates that ordinary food advertisements shall not involve disease prevention or treatment functions. The defendant's behavior not only violated the above provisions, but also infringed upon consumers' right to know and the right to fair trade. Considering that consumers have already used some of the products, the compensation amount was determined at the court's discretion based on the principles of fairness and balance of interests.

In summary, the court found that the defendant company's behavior constituted consumer fraud, and should bear corresponding legal responsibilities. Since both parties reached a mediation agreement under the court's supervision, which reflects their true intentions and does not violate legal provisions, the court confirmed it.

Legal provisions link

  Article 20 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law of the People's Republic of China Operators shall provide consumers with truthful and comprehensive information about the quality, performance, use, and validity period of goods or services, and shall not make false or misleading advertisements.

Article 55 If an operator commits fraud in providing goods or services, it shall increase compensation for the consumer's losses at the consumer's request. The increased compensation shall be three times the price paid for the goods or the cost of the services; if the increased compensation is less than 500 yuan, it shall be 500 yuan.

Article 73 of the Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China Food advertisements shall be truthful and lawful, shall not contain false content, and shall not involve disease prevention or treatment functions. Food producers and operators are responsible for the truthfulness and legality of food advertisement content.

Article 79 Health food advertisements, in addition to complying with the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 73 of this law, shall also declare "This product cannot replace medicine."

Article 17 of the Advertising Law of the People's Republic of China Except for advertisements related to medical treatment, drugs, and medical devices, any other advertisements involving disease treatment functions are prohibited, and medical terms or terms that may confuse the promoted goods with drugs or medical devices shall not be used.

Article 28 Advertisements that deceive or mislead consumers with false or misleading content constitute false advertising.

Article 148 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China If one party uses fraudulent means to cause the other party to perform a civil legal act against their true intention, the defrauded party has the right to request the people's court or arbitration institution to revoke it.

Article 170 Civil legal acts performed by personnel executing the tasks of a legal person or unincorporated organization within the scope of their authority in the name of the legal person or unincorporated organization shall be effective against the legal person or unincorporated organization.

Article 15 of the Supreme People's Court Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Food and Drug Dispute Cases If there are quality problems in the production or sale of food or drugs, both the producer and seller shall bear civil, administrative, and criminal liabilities simultaneously. If their property is insufficient to cover these liabilities, it shall be prioritized for civil liabilities.