• 亿邦公众号
    • APP下载

百万网红抹黑小米被抓 猛料越扒越多

作者:李松月 文章来源:电商之家

2026-07-22 10:44

作者:李松月 文章来源:电商之家

2026-07-22 10:44

邦小白快读

EN
全文速览

本文核心披露了百万网红虚假测评抹黑小米汽车被判有罪的事件,同时揭露了当前网络测评行业的普遍乱象,给普通消费者提供了不少实用提醒。

1. 核心事件梳理:B站汽车区百万粉丝UP主高若翔,为博流量人为提前破坏小米SU7的小电瓶,制作虚假对撞测评抹黑小米汽车安全性能,最终被法院认定犯损害商品声誉罪,判处有期徒刑一年八个月,罚金十万元。

2. 行业现状数据:中国消费者协会调查显示,93.1%的测评存在缺乏统一标准的问题,55.7%为商测一体以商养测模式,35.7%涉嫌虚假测评,近八成消费者购物前会看测评,大多内容不实。

3. 普通消费者实操提醒:如今监管出台了《网络测评活动规范》,大家看测评时要注意分辨内容是否合规,不要盲目相信所谓大V的测评结论,避免被不实信息误导选错商品。

本文揭露了第三方网络测评领域的黑产乱象,也分享了品牌应对恶意抹黑的案例,给各类品牌企业提供了多方面干货参考。

1. 当前品牌面临的风险:第三方测评黑产占比很高,超过三成测评账号涉嫌虚假测评,新上市的热门产品很容易被别有用心的博主当成博流量的靶子,不实测评会快速拉低品牌风评,影响产品销售。

2. 维权参考经验:小米在遭遇不实测评后,第一时间公开实锤证据,发送律师函,在对方道歉无法平息争议后及时报案,通过法律途径让造谣者承担刑事责任,有效维护了品牌声誉,这套应对方式值得品牌参考。

3. 新规要求与机遇:国家已经出台《网络测评活动规范》明确测评合规要求,品牌可以依托新规监督测评行为,同时近八成消费者关注测评,品牌也可以和合规测评机构合作,真实展示产品,获得消费者信任。

本文披露了虚假测评的司法判例和最新监管政策,给各类带货卖家、测评类卖家提供了风险提示和发展方向参考。

1. 最新政策解读:2026年国家网信办和市场监管总局联合印发《网络测评活动规范》,明确要求测评必须符合多项规则:性能测试要委托有法定资质的机构,主观体验要标注,利益关系要披露,带货测评要标广告,样品必须是市售普通商品。

2. 风险警示:本次案例中百万粉丝博主因为恶意捏造虚假测评损害品牌声誉,被判处有期徒刑,说明靠虚假测评、恶意拉踩竞品博流量带货已经属于违法犯罪行为,不再是简单的内容违规,卖家不要抱有侥幸心理。

3. 机会提示:本次行业整顿会清理大量不合规的黑灰产卖家,正规合规经营的卖家会获得更大的市场空间,卖家只要主动按照新规要求合规运营,就能建立消费者信任,获得长期增长。

本文披露的虚假测评事件和行业现状,给生产制造工厂带来多方面的启示和商业参考。

1. 产品舆情管理启示:近八成消费者购物前会参考第三方测评,虚假测评会对新上市产品的声誉和销量造成严重冲击,工厂推出新品后,需要建立完善的舆情监测机制,及时发现不实负面信息。

2. 应对不实信息的参考:遭遇不实恶意测评后,要及时收集证据,通过官方渠道公开真相,必要时走法律途径维护权益,避免不实信息持续扩散造成更大损失。

3. 商业机会:当前虚假测评泛滥,消费者和品牌都对真实可信的产品测评有强烈需求,工厂可以和合规正规的测评机构合作,真实展示产品的性能和优势,降低消费者的信息不对称,帮助产品更快打开市场,同时推进自身线上渠道的数字化运营,更好应对舆情风险。

本文揭露了网络测评行业的现存问题、监管动向,给为品牌、消费者提供测评、内容相关服务的服务商指明了发展方向。

1. 当前客户核心痛点:一方面品牌方深受恶意虚假测评的困扰,自身应对成本高,需要合规的第三方服务帮助维护品牌声誉、监督不实内容;另一方面消费者无法分辨测评真假,找不到真实可信的测评内容参考,整个行业都面临信任危机。

2. 行业发展趋势:监管已经出台正式的《网络测评活动规范》,司法也开始对虚假测评追究刑事责任,整个行业即将迎来全面的整顿清洗,草莽生长的黑灰产会被逐步清退,合规化是未来的必然发展方向。

3. 服务商转型方向:服务商可以抓住行业整顿的机会,向标准化、合规化方向转型,严格按照新规要求提供测评服务,建立公开透明的测评标准,主动公示利益关系,满足品牌和消费者的真实需求,抢占合规市场的份额。

本文披露的虚假测评乱象和最新监管要求,给各类内容电商、内容平台的运营管理提供了风向参考和改进方向。

1. 平台当前存在的问题:大量测评账号入驻平台,其中超过三成涉嫌虚假测评,这些违规内容既损害了消费者和品牌方的合法权益,也会给平台带来合规风险,本次案例中涉事虚假视频就是由平台隐藏,平台需要承担内容管理的责任。

2. 运营管理改进方向:根据国家最新出台的《网络测评活动规范》,平台需要尽快完善自身的内容审核规则,明确测评账号的合规要求,要求账号按规定披露利益关系、标注广告属性,对违规虚假测评及时处理,降低自身合规风险。

3. 招商和生态建设方向:平台可以加大力度引入合规的正规测评机构和优质测评账号,清退违规的虚假测评账号,打造可信的测评内容生态,提升平台用户信任度,吸引更多品牌和用户合作,长期来看有利于平台的健康发展。

本文披露了网络测评行业的最新司法案例、监管政策和产业现状,为产业研究者提供了丰富的研究素材和新的研究方向。

1. 产业新动向:网络测评行业已经从早期的个人知识分享,逐步异化为存在大量黑灰产的领域,形成了虚假测评、恶意拉踩带货的黑色产业链,本次高若翔一案是少有的虚假测评入刑的判例,标志着行业从草莽发展进入合规整顿的新阶段。

2. 政策新进展:国家网信办和市场监管总局联合出台《网络测评活动规范》,首次系统性明确了网络测评活动的各类合规要求,填补了此前行业监管的规则空白,是我国网络内容监管的重要新进展。

3. 值得深入研究的新问题:本次判例也引出了很多新的研究问题,比如如何平衡网络内容创作自由与企业商品名誉权的保护,如何建立统一通用的测评行业标准,如何引导行业合规发展保护消费者权益,这些都是值得研究者深入探讨的新方向。

声明:快读内容全程由AI生成,请注意甄别信息。如您发现问题,请发送邮件至 run@ebrun.com 。

我是 品牌商 卖家 工厂 服务商 平台商 研究者 帮我再读一遍。

Quick Summary

This article centers on the disclosure of the guilty verdict against a million-follower influencer who defamed Xiaomi’s new electric vehicle via a fake review, exposes widespread industry malpractice in the online review sector, and offers practical guidance for general consumers.

1. Key case recap: Gao Ruoxiang, a one-million-follower automotive content creator on Bilibili, deliberately disabled the 12V battery of a Xiaomi SU7 ahead of a crash test to manufacture a fake review smearing Xiaomi’s vehicle safety for clicks. He was ultimately found guilty of damaging commercial product reputation, sentenced to 18 months in prison, and fined 100,000 RMB.

2. Industry data: A survey by the China Consumers Association shows that 93.1% of online reviews lack unified standardized testing criteria; 55.7% follow a "review-commercial integration" model that funds review operations via commercial deals; 35.7% are confirmed to be fraudulent; and nearly 80% of consumers check reviews before shopping, most of which are inaccurate or misleading.

3. Practical tips for consumers: Chinese regulators have released the *Code of Conduct for Online Review Activities*, so consumers should verify whether reviews meet regulatory requirements, avoid blindly trusting so-called big influencer endorsements and conclusions, and prevent being misled into making bad purchasing decisions.

This article exposes black market malpractice in the third-party online review industry and shares a case study of a brand successfully responding to malicious defamation, offering actionable takeaways for all types of brand enterprises.

1. Current risks for brands: A large share of third-party reviews are linked to black market operations, with more than one-third of all review accounts suspected of publishing fake content. Hot newly launched products are often targeted by bad-faith creators for clickbait, and fraudulent negative reviews can quickly damage brand reputation and hurt product sales.

2. Lessons for rights protection: After being targeted with the fake review, Xiaomi publicly disclosed solid evidence of fraud and issued a legal letter immediately. When an apology from the creator failed to resolve the controversy, Xiaomi filed a police report promptly, and pursued legal action to hold the creator criminally liable, effectively protecting its brand reputation. This full response framework is a valuable reference for other brands.

3. New regulatory requirements and opportunities: China has already released the *Code of Conduct for Online Review Activities* that clearly defines compliance requirements for reviews. Brands can leverage the new regulation to monitor review activities, and with nearly 80% of consumers relying on reviews before purchasing, brands can also partner with compliant review institutions to authentically showcase their products and build consumer trust.

This article discloses a landmark criminal ruling on fake reviews and the latest regulatory policies, providing risk warnings and strategic guidance for live commerce sellers and review-focused content sellers.

1. Latest policy interpretation: In 2026, the Cyberspace Administration of China and the State Administration for Market Regulation jointly issued the *Code of Conduct for Online Review Activities*, which lays out clear mandatory rules: performance testing must be commissioned from legally qualified institutions; subjective experience content must be clearly labeled; any conflicting interests must be disclosed; review-linked sales content must be marked as advertising; and test samples must be ordinary commercially available products.

2. Risk warning: The sentencing of the million-follower influencer for maliciously fabricating fake reviews to damage brand reputation makes clear that gaining traffic and driving sales via fake reviews and malicious competitor bashing is now a criminal offense, not just a minor content violation. Sellers should not underestimate regulatory enforcement or count on getting away with non-compliance.

3. Growth opportunities: The ongoing industry clean-up will eliminate a large number of non-compliant black and grey market operators, leaving greater market space for legitimate, rule-abiding sellers. Sellers that proactively adjust their operations to meet the new regulatory requirements will be able to build consumer trust and achieve long-term growth.

The fake review case and industry status disclosed in this article offer multiple insights and business references for manufacturing factories.

1. Implications for product public opinion management: Nearly 80% of consumers consult third-party reviews before purchasing, and fake reviews can severely damage the reputation and sales of newly launched products. Factories need to establish comprehensive public opinion monitoring mechanisms after launching new products to detect false negative information in a timely manner.

2. Reference for responding to misinformation: When targeted by malicious fake reviews, factories should collect evidence promptly, disclose the truth through official channels, and pursue legal action to protect their rights when necessary to prevent misinformation from spreading and causing greater losses.

3. Business opportunities: Amid widespread fake reviews, both consumers and brands have strong demand for authentic, trustworthy product testing. Factories can partner with compliant, legitimate review institutions to authentically showcase product performance and advantages, reduce information asymmetry for consumers, help products penetrate the market faster, and advance digital operations for their online channels to better manage public opinion risks.

This article exposes existing problems in the online review industry and outlines new regulatory trends, pointing out future development directions for service providers that offer review and content-related services to brands and consumers.

1. Core pain points for clients: On one hand, brands suffer heavily from malicious fake reviews, and internal response efforts carry high costs, so they need compliant third-party services to protect brand reputation and monitor non-compliant content. On the other hand, consumers cannot distinguish between authentic and fake reviews and struggle to find reliable content for reference, leaving the entire industry mired in a trust crisis.

2. Industry development trends: Regulators have already issued the formal *Code of Conduct for Online Review Activities*, and courts have started holding creators criminally liable for fake reviews. The industry is about to undergo a comprehensive clean-up: unregulated black and grey market operators will be gradually phased out, and compliance is the only inevitable future direction for the sector.

3. Transformation directions for service providers: Service providers can leverage the industry clean-up as an opportunity to transform toward standardization and compliance, deliver review services strictly in line with new regulatory requirements, build open and transparent testing standards, proactively disclose conflicts of interest, meet the real demands of brands and consumers, and capture market share in the fast-growing compliant segment.

The fake review malpractice and latest regulatory requirements disclosed in this article provide strategic reference and improvement guidance for the operation and management of content e-commerce platforms and content platforms.

1. Existing problems for platforms: A large share of review accounts on platforms, more than one third, are suspected of publishing fake reviews. These non-compliant contents not only harm the legitimate rights and interests of consumers and brands, but also expose platforms to regulatory compliance risks. In the Gao Ruoxiang case, the platform hid the fake controversial video, and thus bears responsibility for inadequate content management.

2. Improvements for operation and management: In accordance with the newly released *Code of Conduct for Online Review Activities*, platforms need to update their content review rules as soon as possible, clarify compliance requirements for review accounts, mandate that accounts disclose conflicts of interest and label advertising content as required, and remove non-compliant fake reviews promptly to reduce their own compliance risk.

3. Directions for business recruitment and ecosystem building: Platforms can prioritize onboarding compliant, legitimate review institutions and high-quality review accounts, while removing non-compliant fake review accounts, to build a trustworthy review content ecosystem. This will boost user trust in the platform, attract more brands and users to the platform, and support long-term healthy development.

This article discloses the latest judicial ruling, regulatory policies and industry status of the online review sector, providing rich research materials and new research directions for industry researchers.

1. New industry trends: The online review industry has evolved from early-stage personal knowledge sharing into a sector rife with black and grey market activities, where a full black industrial chain of fake reviews, malicious competitor bashing, and review-driven sales has formed. The Gao Ruoxiang case is one of the few criminal convictions for fake review activities, marking the industry’s transition from unregulated growth to a new stage of compliance-focused clean-up.

2. New policy developments: The Cyberspace Administration of China and the State Administration for Market Regulation have jointly issued the *Code of Conduct for Online Review Activities*, which for the first time systematically defines all types of compliance requirements for online review activities, fills the previous regulatory gap for the industry, and represents an important new development in China’s online content regulation.

3. New topics for in-depth research: This ruling also raises a range of new research questions, including how to balance freedom of online content creation with protection of enterprises’ right to product reputation, how to establish unified universal testing standards for the review industry, and how to guide the industry’s compliant development to protect consumer rights. All of these are new directions that warrant in-depth exploration by researchers.

Disclaimer: The "Quick Summary" content is entirely generated by AI. Please exercise discretion when interpreting the information. For issues or corrections, please email run@ebrun.com .

I am a Brand Seller Factory Service Provider Marketplace Seller Researcher Read it again.

以为是退网了,原来是落网了。

出品 | 电商之家 作者 | 李松月

一条播放量超过三百万的视频,换来一年八个月的有期徒刑。

做这条视频的人叫高若翔,B站汽车区UP主,账号“原来是翔翔啊”,粉丝原先过百万。

先前,他发布了一条小米SU7与极氪007对撞的测试视频,画面里小米汽车碰撞后小电瓶断电、车门打不开、紧急呼叫系统失灵。

视频上线不到一周点击量就冲破了270万,小米很快就发了律师函。

两年后的现在,北京市海淀区人民法院对此案作出一审判决,判处高若翔有期徒刑一年八个月,罚金人民币十万元。

一条耗资百万的测评视频,最终换来的不是涨粉,而是塌房和坐牢,令人唏嘘。

百万播放量背后的剧本

高若翔从曾经的百万网红,到如今全网群嘲,只花了不到两年时间。凭着前合资品牌工程师和赛车手的履历,他的账号“原来是翔翔啊”慢慢攒起了近百万粉丝。

但百万粉丝的体量,在汽车自媒体圈还算不上顶流。高若翔和他的团队需要更大的爆款来突破天花板,而2024年3月上市的小米SU7,恰好成了那个被瞄准的流量靶子。

2024年4月,高若翔注意到有网友留言想看小米SU7和极氪007对撞。团队先发了一条预热视频试探市场,播放量接近五百万,点赞超过四十万,数据好得让他们下了决心。

2024年7月22日,对撞实验终于做了。8月13日,视频《当小米SU7撞上一辆极氪007》正式上线。

画面中,两车以时速六十公里、百分之九十重叠率发生碰撞。结果出现了强烈的戏剧反差,极氪007在碰撞后自动接通了报警电话,车窗和车门都能正常打开;而小米SU7在碰撞后小电瓶断电、车门无法打开、紧急呼叫系统失灵、中控电子屏全黑。

高若翔在视频里分析说,小米SU7的小电瓶正极线在对撞后脱落导致全车断电,半隐藏式门把手需要电控解锁,断电后自然打不开,他把问题归结为小米造车经验不足。

视频不到一周点击量突破270万,一时间,小米汽车的风评急转直下,但网上对这个测评结果也有质疑声。

有人逐帧观察视频后发现了一个破绽,同一段视频里,有的画面小米SU7车身上有小电瓶,有的没有;小电瓶标签处的破损时有时无。这意味着视频很可能是故意营造碰撞后全车断电的假象。

8月14日,小米汽车官方公开回应,公布了国家监控平台的数据,显示在碰撞前该车辆数据长时间掉线,小电瓶存在长时间断开的情况。

小米强调,这一所谓测试是设置不严谨、记录不完整、结论不真实的。而早在视频发布当天,小米的律师函就已送到高若翔团队手中,明确指出小电瓶前后不一致。

并且小米呼叫中心在碰撞后第一时间呼叫,后台连续呼叫持续五分钟未收到反馈,后又对车主登记手机号进行了五次回拨,均无人接听。也就是说,紧急呼叫系统并没有失效,有人故意不接电话。

刚开始面对网友的质疑,高若翔团队在评论区回应说小电瓶正极线就是现场撞掉的。

随后小米拿出证据,寄出律师函,高若翔团队经过回溯,又改口说可能测评存在瑕疵,辩称电池在拆下时是完好的,但在打包装车时被叉车碰坏了。

8月14日,高若翔团队修改了原视频,并发布了一条道歉视频。但道歉没能平息争议,评论区质问继续发酵,很快,这两条视频链接在账号主页都看不到了。团队成员后来对媒体表示,是被平台方隐藏的。

可如果道歉有用,就不需要法律了。2024年11月,小米公司正式向警方报案。高若翔随即被刑事拘留,据媒体报道,还有公司运营、剪辑、制片等三名同事也相继被刑拘。

2025年1月,经北京市海淀区人民检察院批准,高若翔被正式逮捕。

同年9月,检方以损害商品声誉罪对高若翔提起公诉。

2026年2月,该案在北京市海淀区人民法院一审开庭。

庭审中,检方指控的核心事实逐渐清晰。高若翔在制作测评视频过程中,隐瞒了小米SU7小电瓶电源线在碰撞前被人为拆装的事实,使用了被叉车损坏的小电瓶照片进行误导,在未经核实的情况下宣称紧急呼叫功能碰撞后不能正常运作。

高若翔的辩护律师曾为他作了无罪辩护,并提交了数位刑法专家出具的专家意见书,高若翔本人也表态不认罪。

团队商务在接受采访时说,我们承认项目执行中存在流程不够严谨的问题,但我们不是黑公关,也没有收钱。

直至近日,北京市海淀区人民法院作出一审判决。

法院认定,高若翔犯损害商品声誉罪,致使小米汽车声誉受到严重影响,判处有期徒刑一年八个月,罚金人民币十万元。

法院给出了定性,即捏造虚假事实,主观故意损害他人商品声誉。

当然,这还是一审判决,高若翔方有上诉权利,目前并非终审定案。至此,一个汽车自媒体博主,为博流量不惜违法犯罪的嫌疑,被曝光在大众面前。网络测评这件事,里面的水可太深了。

测评造假已成电商行业乱象

近日,央视曝光了长沙一家专做家电测评带货的公司。这家公司看起来和普通直播间没什么区别,镜头前摆着两台扫地机器人,主播一边解说一边做对比演示,画面里全是客观公正的测评氛围。

但镜头拍不到的地方,完全是另一回事。

测扫地机器人自清洁功能的时候,助理趁镜头移开的几秒钟,掏出喷壶给备用机的底座喷上水,然后迅速换掉台上那台刚干完活的脏机器,伪造出机器自清洁功能强大的假象。

碰到竞品在测评中表现太好压不住,工作人员直接走到机器后面,趁镜头没拍到,把竞品的电源按掉了,以此来压制竞品,衬托自家产品。

到了最终对比环节,工作人员往两条测试赛道上一路泼清水,一路泼酱油,输赢在开播前就已经定好了。

镜头前是客观公正的横向测评,镜头后却是精心编排的带货剧本。

而这条黑色产业链的规模,远比想象中更大。中国消费者协会对12个互联网平台、350家测评账号做过一次系统调查,结果显示如下。

93.1%的测评存在标准问题,多数是缺乏统一标准的随意测评;55.7%存在商测一体、以商养测的模式,说白了就是披着测评外衣做广告;更有35.7%的测评账号涉嫌虚假测评,数据和结论根本经不起推敲。

近八成消费者在购物前会看第三方测评,但他们看到的绝大多数测评,本质上都是广告,甚至是骗局。

好在几乎同一时间,监管也在收紧。2026年6月8日,国家网信办、市场监管总局联合印发了《网络测评活动规范》,逐条回应了测评黑产暴露的行业病灶。

涉及产品性能测试的,必须委托具有法定资质的机构按标准开展;仅凭主观感受评价的,必须显著标明“仅为个人体验”;存在利益关系的,必须作出显著提示;借测评推销商品的,必须标明“广告”;测评样品必须是消费者能从市场上买到的普通商品,不能是为测评定制的特殊产品。

一句话总结,就是可以用测评的方式赚钱,但前提是不能骗人,必须公平公正。

正如广东省知识经济发展促进会创会会长所言,测评本应是为消费者降低信息不对称的知识服务,一旦异化为不测而评、商测一体、恶意拉踩的黑灰产,吞噬的就是整个市场的信任基础。

曾经的网络测评是一片草莽之地,一个个披着行家的外衣博取大众信任,真相却是把广大消费者当成韭菜来割。

而如今,随着一桩桩一件件虚假测评被判刑,整个行业将进行一次彻底的清洗整顿。

注:文/李松月,文章来源:电商之家(公众号ID:iechome),本文为作者独立观点,不代表亿邦动力立场。

【版权提示】亿邦动力倡导尊重与保护知识产权。未经许可,任何人不得复制、转载、或以其他方式使用本网站的内容。如发现本站文章存在版权问题,烦请提供版权疑问、身份证明、版权证明、联系方式等发邮件至run@ebrun.com,我们将及时沟通与处理。

已点赞

+1

{{ praise_text }}

好文章,值得被更多人看到

FAQ回顾

发布虚假小米SU7对撞测评的博主高若翔获刑多久?

北京市海淀区人民法院一审认定高若翔犯损害商品声誉罪,其造假行为致使小米汽车声誉受到严重影响,判处其有期徒刑一年八个月,罚金人民币十万元,目前该判决为一审判决,高若翔方有权上诉。

我国网络测评行业目前存在哪些突出问题?

据中国消费者协会对12个互联网平台、350家测评账号的调查显示,93.1%的测评存在标准问题,55.7%属于商测一体、以商养测的模式,35.7%的测评账号涉嫌虚假测评,不少测评本质是广告甚至骗局,误导消费者决策。

《网络测评活动规范》对测评行为有哪些要求?

该规范由国家网信办、市场监管总局联合印发,要求产品性能测试需委托有法定资质的机构按标准开展,主观感受评价需标注“仅为个人体验”,存在利益关联需显著提示,借测评推销需标明广告,测评样品需为市面可购的普通商品。

广告

下一篇

跨境电商资源对接

《全球跨境电商服务商资源手册》第二期手册现已发布,触达更多资源,了解跨境服务商信息,欢迎点击链接下载。

了解详情

网易有道将推出AI耳机 刘韧磊:Agent重新定义AI价值

2026 WAIC,网易有道高级副总裁刘韧磊发表主题演讲《Agent如何走进学习与办公的真实场景》,分享了有道在AI Agent领域的探索和产品实践。

有道 AI

2026-07-22 09:48:43