Splitting Orders 1118 Times to Buy Daily Chemical Products and Claiming 470,000 Yuan: Beijing's First 'Occupational Claim' Extortion Case Sentenced — Are Compliant Enterprises Afraid of Professional Complainers?
On July 22, 2026, the Beijing Chaoyang District People's Court pronounced the first-instance verdict in a case that caused quite a stir in the beauty and daily chemical circle: two 'professional complainers' split orders 1118 times to purchase shampoo, facial masks, and other daily chemical products, and claimed nearly 470,000 yuan from the company on the grounds of 'defects in product promotion.' They were ultimately found by the court to constitute the crime of extortion. The principal offender, Wang Moumou, was sentenced to three years and six months in prison and fined 20,000 yuan; his girlfriend, Xie Moumou, was sentenced to ten months in prison with a one-year suspension and fined 6,000 yuan. Both stated in court that they would not appeal.
This is Beijing's first 'profit-driven claim' case characterized as the crime of extortion. On the day the news came out, several friends of mine in the branding business were forwarding it in my WeChat Moments, and the comments section basically had one voice: this verdict was long overdue.
I. What exactly happened in this case?
The matter is not complicated, but the operational method was quite 'professional.'
From June 2024 to March 2025, over a full nine months, Wang Moumou and Xie Moumou controlled multiple online accounts and specifically targeted daily chemical products on a large online supermarket (reported to be Xiaoxiang Supermarket). Their goal was clear: 13 categories of goods such as shampoo, facial masks, and toothpaste, looking for products with 'defects' in their promotional copy.
How did they buy? Not a bunch at a time, but only one item per order, repeatedly placing orders with different accounts, totaling 1118 orders. After buying, they did not use the products but directly filed complaints.
Through the national 12315 platform and the Beijing 12345 citizen hotline, the two concentrated and repeatedly submitted complaints and reports in a short period, totaling hundreds of times. The reason for the complaints was 'problems with product promotion.'
Here comes the key point — when communicating with the company, they explicitly stated: 500 yuan in compensation per order; if not paid, they would continue complaining until the market supervision department filed a case and imposed penalties. They rejected all settlement proposals proposed by the company and stuck firmly to the fixed standard of '500 yuan per order.'
As of the time of the incident, the two had claimed a cumulative amount of nearly 470,000 yuan. They actually received 116,500 yuan; the other 350,000 yuan was not obtained because the company firmly refused to pay.
On December 10, 2025, the two were arrested by public security organs. After the incident, Xie Moumou's family compensated 8,500 yuan on her behalf, and Wang Moumou's family compensated 110,000 yuan on his behalf.
II. How did the court rule? Why is this 'extortion' rather than 'anti-counterfeiting'?
The ruling in this case was quite well-reasoned; the court clearly delineated the boundary between 'lawful rights protection' and 'malicious profit-seeking' from three dimensions.
First, they were not 'consumers' at all.
The subjects protected by the Consumer Rights Protection Law are persons who 'purchase or use goods or receive services for daily living consumption needs.' What about these two? Cross-regional, large-volume, high-frequency split orders — 1118 orders of daily chemical products — clearly exceeded the reasonable daily living use needs of individuals and families. The court found: they bought things not for consumption but for claims.
Second, the purpose of illegal possession was clear.
Wang Moumou had long relied on complaints and claims as his main source of income and also exchanged and taught complaint and claim techniques through social software. The complaint behavior of the two showed formulaic, templated, and professional characteristics. This was not an accidental discovery of a problem for rights protection but a production line of 'find defects → bulk orders → complain → demand money.'
Third, the means constituted coercion.
They treated withdrawal of complaints as the direct consideration for demanding 'compensation,' used procedural rights such as filing civil lawsuits order by order and requesting administrative penalties as tools of pressure, and coerced companies by threatening litigation burdens and reputation, forcing companies to pay obviously unreasonable compensation.
To put it plainly, rights protection was a cover; making money was the goal.
III. Should businesses be afraid of 'professional complainers'?
I have been in the industry for more than twenty years and have seen too many companies exhausted by professional complainers. To be honest, whether you are afraid of professional complainers depends on whether you yourself are clean.
If your own product promotion really contains exaggeration, falsehood, or misleading content, then it is only a matter of time before professional complainers target you. Article 55 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law clearly states: where a business operator commits fraud, the increased compensation amount shall be three times the price paid by the consumer for the goods, or 500 yuan if the amount is less than 500 yuan. If someone comes to claim against you according to this standard, you are indeed in the wrong within the legal framework.
But if your own compliance system is solid, every word of product promotion is supported by evidence, and registration certificates, test reports, and efficacy evaluation reports are complete, then professional complainers who come looking for trouble will only end up embarrassed.
One detail in this case is particularly noteworthy: the court found that the products involved did not have quality problems sufficient to constitute consumer fraud, and the punitive damages clause did not apply. In other words, the products themselves had no quality problems; there were only some 'defects' in promotion, which did not meet the standard of 'fraud.' These two people deliberately magnified small issues and used complaints as a means of coercion for profit.
IV. Implications for the cosmetics and medical device industries
To be frank, this ruling is good news for our cosmetics and medical device industry.
First, the law gives compliant enterprises confidence. In the past, when encountering professional complainers, many companies chose to settle the matter by paying money to get rid of them. Why? Fear of trouble, fear that complaints would affect platform ratings, fear that market supervision departments would visit and delay production. But this case clearly tells enterprises: when faced with malicious claims, be firm; the law is on your side.
Second, compliance is not a cost but a moat. In the fields of cosmetics and Class II medical devices, compliance requirements are actually already very clear. Products have registration certificates, promotion does not exceed scope, efficacy claims are supported by evidence, and labels and markings are standardized — if you achieve these, it will be very difficult for professional complainers to find grounds for 'fraud' against you.
Finally, what the industry needs is healthy supervision, not malicious profit-seeking. Normal consumer rights protection is a good thing; it can help enterprises discover problems and standardize operations. But behavior like turning rights protection into a business and using complaints as weapons to extort enterprises undermines the trust foundation of the entire market.
V. Weitai's approach: compliance is the bottom line, not a slogan
Speaking of compliance, this is something our Weitai Group has emphasized since day one.
We are an enterprise jointly developing products in cosmetics and medical devices, simultaneously doing OEM/ODM for cosmetics and Class II medical devices. Regulatory requirements in this field are stricter than for pure cosmetics — the applicable scope, structural composition, and model specifications of medical device registration certificates must be consistent with the approval of the drug administration word for word; not one word more or less is acceptable.
Our approach is simple:
First, promote products exactly as the registration certificate states. For our 78 Class II medical device registration certificates, the applicable scope, structural composition, and model specifications of each product are displayed externally strictly according to the original registration certificate, without exaggeration, extension, or implication. Professional complainers want to find grounds in our promotional materials for 'exceeding the registration scope'? They cannot.
Second, efficacy evaluation follows formal procedures. All efficacy claims are supported by third-party test reports and do not rely on vague expressions such as 'it is said,' 'possibly,' or 'helps' to fool consumers.
Third, labels and markings undergo compliance review. Before each product's packaging copy, detail page, and promotional materials go online, they must undergo internal compliance review to ensure compliance with the Cosmetics Supervision and Administration Regulation, the Medical Device Supervision and Administration Regulation, and relevant laws and regulations.
We have cooperated with brands such as CR Sanjiu, Danzi, Bawang, and HBN for so many years and have never had compliance problems. This is not luck; it is the system.
VI. Final thoughts
The greatest significance of this case is not punishing two professional complainers but sending a signal to the entire market: the law protects consumers but does not protect those who turn rights protection into a business.
For enterprises, the best defense is to do yourself well. Product compliance, truthful promotion, adequate testing, complete records — if you achieve these, no professional complainer can do anything to you.
This is even more true for us as an OEM/ODM enterprise. We produce products for brand owners. If there are loopholes in our compliance system, the ultimate victims are not only ourselves but also the clients who trust us. Therefore, in compliance, there is no 'good enough'; only 'done properly.'
About Weitai Group
Founded in 2012, Weitai Group is a national dual high-tech enterprise focusing on joint development of cosmetics and medical devices, providing medical aesthetic efficacy skincare OEM/ODM and proprietary brand operation services. The group has four major production bases (Foshan, Guangzhou, Ningxiang in Hunan, and Zhaoqing), with Guangzhou Baiyun Meiwang Testing Building as its operation center: Foshan Nanhai Factory (6,000㎡), Guangzhou Baiyun Factory (8,000㎡), Hunan Yi'an Class II Device Factory (15,000㎡), and Zhaoqing High-tech Zone Factory.
It currently holds more than 110 Class II medical device registrations and filings, reserves a large number of mature formulas, and owns 72 patents and more than 30 international patents. It has established cooperative relationships with more than 800 brands, including CR Sanjiu, Danzi, Bawang, HBN, Xingzhishan, Qianrujiao, and Feisini.
Cooperation consultation: 50% advance payment + 50% cash on delivery
Official website: www.weitaigd.com
References:
1. The Beijing News, 'Splitting Orders to Buy 1118 Transactions and Claiming Nearly 470,000 Yuan, Chaoyang Court: Not Anti-Counterfeiting, but Extortion' (2026-07-24)
2. China Consumer News, 'Beijing Sentences First Profit-Driven Claim Extortion Case' (2026-07-27)
3. Legal Daily, 'Placing More Than a Thousand Orders and Claiming Nearly 470,000 Yuan, Chaoyang Court Sentences "Occupational Claim" Extortion Case' (2026-07-22)
