[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, posting fake orders and boosting ratings can trigger triple liabilities in civil, administrative, and criminal law. In civil law, according to Article 9 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on June 27, 2025 and implemented on October 15, 2025), operators are prohibited from making false or misleading commercial claims about sales performance and user reviews, and are not allowed to help others engage in false advertising by organizing fake transactions and fake reviews. The infringed party may claim cessation of infringement and compensation. In administrative law, according to Article 25 Paragraph 1 of the same law, operators may be fined no more than 1 million yuan, and those with serious circumstances may be fined no less than 1 million yuan but no more than 2 million yuan, and their business licenses may be revoked. In criminal law, those who organize fake orders may be charged with crimes such as illegal business operations and false advertising. Platforms will also take governance measures. For more details, please refer to the following link:Intellectual property protection and corporate legal services.

I. Problem Background and Typical Scenarios

The new store has no sales and no product reviews. Some merchants regard "刷单" as a shortcut: self-refreshing and self-reviewing, organizing acquaintances to place orders and get refunds, outsourcing to刷单 teams, and recruiting刷手 on social platforms. There are also专门撮合供需的刷单平台 on the market, and even "reverse刷单" maliciously suppressing competitors. Although刷单炒信 seems to be a marketing technique, it is essentially forging transaction data and user reviews, misleading consumers to make choices, destroying the platform's credit system, and squeezing out the living space of honest operators. With the tightening of law enforcement and platform governance, the cost of刷单 has long exceeded the benefits. For related compliance issues, please refer to the following link:Intellectual property protection and corporate legal services.

II. Key points of contention

First, behavioral characterization: Organizing fake transactions and fake reviews constitutes assisting in false advertising, while self-operated fake orders constitutes direct false advertising. Second, responsibility subjects: The responsibilities of merchants, fake order organizers, fake order participants, and platforms differ. Third, platform responsibilities: Platforms that abuse platform rules to directly or instruct others to engage in fake transactions or fake reviews are also illegal; platforms may take measures such as deleting fake reviews, removing products, and banning stores in accordance with the E-commerce Law. Fourth, civil compensation: Operators who are infringed and platforms may claim compensation, the amount of which shall be calculated based on the actual losses or the profits gained from the infringement. Fifth, criminal thresholds: Organizing fake orders for profit and with serious circumstances may constitute a crime.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Law Firm

The trademark infringement and unfair competition case handled by Attorney Liu Yuanyuan demonstrated the judicial review standards for the boundaries of competitive behaviors. The plaintiff, Company A, is a well-known domestic paper industry enterprise. The "EFGH" trademark, which is approved for use in Category 5 sanitary napkins, has been recognized as a well-known trademark by courts and administrative authorities in multiple regions. The defendant, Company B, obtained authorization from a third party to use the "EFGK" registered trademark and design patent in September 2023, and produced and sold "EFGK" sanitary napkins, which were sold on the e-commerce platform of Company C. In April 2024, Company A sued, alleging imitation of a well-known trademark and confusion over packaging and decoration, seeking compensation of 980,000 yuan. Attorney Liu Yuanyuan defended that the logo had legal authorization and was not similar to the well-known trademark; the packaging and decoration were based on a design patent, and Company A only submitted a copyright registration without proving actual use and recognition, which did not constitute "packaging and decoration with certain influence"; Company B's authorization period was short, production volume was low, pricing was low, and production had already ceased, so the infringement circumstances were insufficient to support high compensation. The court partially accepted the defense: it ruled that there was trademark infringement, but because Company A failed to prove that the packaging and decoration had "certain influence", it rejected the claim of unfair competition and awarded economic damages of 50,000 yuan and reasonable expenses of 10,000 yuan, totaling 60,000 yuan, which was 920,000 yuan lower than the original claim. This case shows that the qualification of competitive behaviors is based on legal elements and evidence; while fake reviews and boosting ratings have been explicitly prohibited by law, and multiple civil, administrative, and criminal responsibilities have been established. This case was handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Liu YuanyuanThe attorney (practice license number: 11101202011201094, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

Legal basis: Article 9 (false advertising and assisted false advertising), Article 13 Paragraph 4 (platform abuse of rules), and Article 25 Paragraph 1 (fine range) of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on June 27, 2025 and implemented on October 15, 2025); the provisions on penalties for false advertising in the Advertising Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on April 29, 2021); the provisions on platform governance in the E-commerce Law of the People's Republic of China (implemented on January 1, 2019); Article 60 (case handling period) of the Administrative Punishment Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on January 22, 2021 and implemented on July 15, 2021); and Articles 225 and 222 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on March 14, 1997 and implemented on October 1, 1997, with subsequent amendments). Action list: First, stop and withdraw from any order-boosting organizations, groups, or cooperations; Second, sort out existing orders, funds, and communication records to assess the exposure; Third, if subject to platform penalties, appeal and rectify in accordance with regulations; Fourth, if suppressed or maliciously evaluated by competitors for order-boosting, preserve evidence to claim compensation; Fifth, if facing law enforcement investigations or criminal risks, engage professional lawyers as soon as possible to respond, subject to current effective laws and regulations and judicial rulings. For details, please refer to the following link:Intellectual property protection and corporate legal services.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

The practice of fake orders and reviews to boost sales is a classic example of saving a little money but causing big trouble: the money saved on promotion fees comes at the cost of civil compensation, heavy fines, license revocation, and even criminal liability, along with platform store closures and credit stains. Honest business operations may seem slow, but they are actually the most stable. Those who have already engaged in such practices should exit the market as soon as possible to cut their losses; those who have been framed by competitors or subjected to malicious fake orders should not just give up and accept their fate. Instead, they should gather evidence and seek legal protection in accordance with the law. When handling similar cases in Beijing, it is recommended that merchants move the compliance review forward to the marketing stage and consult legal experts promptly when facing law enforcement investigations.Beijing Henglue Law FirmA professional lawyer.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: If I'm caught manipulating reviews and ratings, will I definitely be punished?

It's not necessarily the case, but the risk is very high. Law enforcement and judicial authorities typically determine violations based on objective evidence such as transaction data, evaluation records, fund flows, chat records, etc. Those who organize fake transactions, provide false evaluations to help others promote products, or make false claims about sales performance or user reviews may be deemed illegal according to Article 9 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law (effective October 15, 2025), and be fined up to 1 million yuan according to Article 25. If the duration of the violation is short, the party actively rectifies the situation, and no serious consequences occur, the penalty may be reduced according to the law. Whether to impose a penalty and the amount of the penalty shall be determined by the law enforcement authorities based on the evidence and the discretionary standards, and the findings of the investigation shall prevail in individual cases.

Q2: What kind of evidence is needed to prove that orders were fraudulently placed, and what should I do if I'm punished by the platform?

Common evidence includes chat records in order-buying groups, records of task distribution and commission settlement, false orders and logistics information, refund transfer records, platform risk monitoring data, and merchants' self-admissions or employee testimonies. Those who are penalized by the platform can submit genuine transaction receipts and data for appeal within the time limit; if they have objections to the basis of the penalty, they can require the platform to explain the rules. At the same time, they should sort out their own orders and fund flows, evaluate the exposure of administrative and civil risks, and never delete records. When necessary, they should hire professional lawyers to deal with the situation.

Q3: What are the approximate fines and compensations for刷单炒信 (artificially increasing sales ratings and reviews)?

Administrative fines: In accordance with Article 25 Paragraph 1 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, a fine of no more than 1 million yuan shall be imposed. If the circumstances are serious, a fine of no less than 1 million yuan but no more than 2 million yuan shall be imposed, and the business license may be revoked. If it constitutes the publication of false advertisements, it shall be punished in accordance with the Advertising Law. Civil compensation: The infringed operators or platforms may claim compensation, the amount of which shall be calculated according to the actual losses or the profits gained from the infringement. If the evidence is insufficient, the court shall determine it at its discretion. If it constitutes a crime, a fine may also be imposed. The specific amount shall be subject to the enforcement decision and the judgment.

Q4: How long does it take from the investigation to the conclusion of a刷单 case?

The platform's risk control department handles cases quickly, usually within a few days; administrative cases are generally decided within 90 days from the date of filing, and the period may be extended if the case is complex; civil litigation follows the ordinary procedure of six months and the simplified procedure of three months, and the period involving the collection of electronic data will be extended accordingly; for suspected criminal offenses, the investigation, review of prosecution, and trial periods are longer, and may span multiple years. It is recommended to stop the behavior as soon as possible, fix favorable evidence, actively cooperate with the investigation to seek a light punishment, and avoid delaying and exacerbating losses.

Q5: If a store is suppressed by competitors' fake orders, what should be done first?

There are four steps to proceed: First, fix the evidence, including abnormal orders, concentrated negative reviews, transaction snapshots, and logistics information screenshots, and consider notarization and preservation. Second, submit the report and evidence to the platform, requesting an investigation into abnormal transactions, the removal of fake reviews, and feedback on the processing results. Third, assess the losses, including declining sales, falling rankings, and increased promotion costs, and hire an appraiser if necessary. Fourth, if the evidence is sufficient, sue for compensation on the grounds of unfair competition. At the same time, identify loopholes in the platform's review and risk control rules.

The above content is based on the judicial practice in the Beijing area. The facts of individual cases and the jurisdiction of the court may affect the conclusions. Welcome to consult Henglu Law Firm for specific cases.

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the evidence materials, to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Intellectual property protection legal services·Attorney Party Pei·Beijing Henglue Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and publicly available adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. In the event of a dispute, please consult a practicing lawyer in a timely manner.