Li Dan officially listed as a "typical case," endorsement career suffers a Waterloo

[2] Compiled from: Shandong High Court
 
Case review
Recently, the Haidian District Market Supervision Administration in Beijing released a batch of typical illegal advertising cases, the first of which was the "Li's illegal advertising case." This case actually stemmed from Li Dan's endorsement of a women's underwear brand earlier this year. Li Dan posted on Weibo: "A tool for women to easily win in the workplace." As soon as this statement was made, netizens were unsettled.

 
 

Some netizens believed that women rely on their abilities and efforts to succeed in the workplace, and the aforementioned advertisement linking "workplace" with "underwear" and suggesting "winning in the workplace by lying down" was a form of discrimination against women's hard work in the workplace, a disrespectful act toward women, with vulgar copy that insulted women's dignity.
 
[1] After investigation, the party did not charge a separate advertising fee for publishing the above advertisement. Additionally, as a public figure, the party recommended the brand's women's underwear in the advertisement using their own fame, which constitutes an act of product endorsement, but Li Dan himself had never used the product.
 
[2] Because Li Dan's above advertising behavior violated Article 9, Item (7) and Article 38, Paragraph 1 of the Advertising Law, the Beijing Haidian District Market Supervision Administration imposed administrative penalties on Li Dan: first, confiscation of illegal income of 225,573.77 yuan; second, a fine of 651,147.54 yuan.
 
 
"Advertising Law of the People's Republic of China"
Article 9 [3] Item (7)
[4] Advertisements shall not contain the following:
[5] (1) Use or imply the use of the national flag, national anthem, national emblem, military flag, military anthem, or military emblem of the People's Republic of China;
[6] (2) Use or imply the use of the name or image of state organs or state functionaries.
(3) Using terms such as "national-level," "highest-level," or "best";
(4) Harming the dignity or interests of the state, or disclosing state secrets;
(5) Undermining social stability or harming public interests;
(6) Endangering personal or property safety, or disclosing personal privacy;
(7) Impairing public order or violating good social customs;
(8) Containing content that is obscene, pornographic, gambling-related, superstitious, terrifying, or violent;
(9) Containing content that discriminates against ethnicity, race, religion, or gender.
(10) Hindering the protection of the environment, natural resources, or cultural heritage;
(11) Other circumstances prohibited by laws or administrative regulations.
 
Article 38, Paragraph 1
An advertising endorser who makes recommendations or certifications for goods or services in an advertisement shall do so based on facts, comply with this Law and relevant laws and administrative regulations, and shall not make recommendations or certifications for goods they have not used or services they have not received.

 
 

 
[1] The author's perspective
In recent years, some advertisers, in an attempt to attract attention, have continuously introduced inappropriate suggestive advertising slogans, most of which involve gender relations and even imply disrespect toward women. Whether concerning gender relations or the female body, these seemingly humorous slogans are neither funny nor appropriate. Such vulgar publicity, treating crudeness as common sense, objectifying women, and disregarding female dignity, while expecting the main target audience to accept it and profiting from it, is absolutely impossible!
 
As seen in Article 9, Item (7) of the Advertising Law, public order and good customs are always the bottom line we adhere to, which cannot be violated or challenged. Advertisements that attempt to cross this line will only be avoided by the public. However, if such painstaking effort and ability were instead focused on improving product quality, the author believes consumers would be more willing to pay. Businesses truly understanding consumer preferences and addressing their needs is the right path; otherwise, one wrong step could lead to a fall into an abyss.
 
Li Dan's endorsement of women's underwear has become a typical case, not only because the speech violated public order and good customs, but also because he had never used the endorsed product himself. It's ridiculous that a man endorsing women's underwear is already strange, and Article 38, Paragraph 1 of the Advertising Law clearly states that endorsers must not recommend products they have not used. What were the merchants thinking when they chose Li Dan as the product endorser? Now, the advertising effect has indeed been achieved, even becoming a typical case, but the consumers lost are drifting further away.
 
In my opinion, while advertising marketing is important and celebrity appeal is indispensable, everything must have its limits. It's good to be refreshing, but not in a way that seeks attention through sensationalism.