Fined 3.48 million! A "fully silent" wallbreaker from Nepal was falsely advertised! I'm not sure if you've seen this before, but I'm sure you've seen it before.

A few days ago, the Shanghai Municipal Market Supervision Bureau announced the 2019 annual "Top Ten Cases", involving anti-monopoly, anti-unfair competition, advertising, combating pyramid schemes, food production, special equipment, medical equipment and other types. Among the disclosure of the case of Zhejiang Supor Home Appliances Manufacturing Co.

In recent years, with the upgrading of consumption, a variety of silent appliances are endless, wall breakers are no exception. Because the traditional wall-breaker will make a huge noise when running, seriously affecting the use of experience. Therefore, all manufacturers hope to develop a silent wallbreaker, and then seize the market high ground.

It is reported that in October 2018, a "Nepal full mute wallbreaker" advertisement on the TV screen, the advertisement on the broadcast of the wallbreaker running sound to carry out a substantial technical processing. For example, in the first second of the commercial, another wallbreaker (model number: JP01-1500) was shown running. The sound of this wallbreaker running was amplified and mixed with the sound of an impact drill, and was described as being as loud as a remodeling site. After testing, the highest operating noise level of the JP01-1500 wallbreaker under the same working conditions was 89.1 decibels.

At the 9th second of the commercial, there is a picture of a "full silent wallbreaker" (models: JP96L-1300 and JP98LV-1300) with a satanwood and walnut kernel in it, and there is no sound of the machine running, it's almost silent. After testing, the advertised models in the same working conditions running noise value of 72 decibels and 78.4 decibels respectively.

From this, we can see that in the case of less than 20 dB difference between the test values of the above models, the advertisements show that the renovation site is nearly silent, which is a serious discrepancy between the real performance of the product and that of the advertisers, making it impossible for them to understand the actual situation and generating a strong cognitive difference.

In addition, the advertisement of "full silent wallbreaker", "high speed wallbreaker, always silent" and other advertising terms are also inconsistent with the actual.

According to the investigation, the so-called "silent" only refers to the wallbreaker in the lowest gear mixing milk noise less than 60 decibels, while the test, the advertisement model in the highest mixing gear running noise reached 77.2 decibels to 81.5 decibels, more than China's current "acoustic environment quality standards" for residential areas. The advertised model runs at 77.2dB to 81.5dB in the highest gear, which exceeds the current Sound Environment Quality Standard for residential areas.

In the advertisement, the party only claimed that the two wall breakers had obtained the "Quiet Certification" issued by a third-party organization, but did not provide any specific information on this "Quiet Certification" (mixing pure milk in the lowest gear) in the advertisement, which may mislead the audience into believing that the machine is a "quiet machine". The fact that the advertisers do not provide any information about this "silent certification" (mixing pure milk in the lowest setting) may mislead the audience into thinking that the two breakers are "silent" under any circumstances.

The case department believes that just because of a one-sided condition of the "silent certification", the party named the product "full silent wall-breaker", this disregard for the actual performance of the product, is a "silent certification" results in a "silent certification".

These are the first time a product has been certified as silent, and the first time a product has been certified as silent.

In November 2019, the Yangpu District Market Supervision Bureau determined that the party's publication of false advertisements violated Article 28 of the Advertising Law, and imposed a fine of RMB 3,483,120, four times the cost of the advertisements, according to the first paragraph of Article 55 of the Advertising Law.

Graphic