Retail News CRM

Tag: fined

  • Xiaomi Vietnam Fined $11,000 For Breach Of Consumer Protection Laws

    Xiaomi Vietnam Fined $11,000 For Breach Of Consumer Protection Laws

    Xiaomi Vietnam, a distributor of consumer electronics under the Chinese brand Xiaomi, has been penalized with a fine of VND290 million (US$11,000) for breaches of consumer protection laws, especially involving the use of personal data for marketing purposes. The company was charged with not granting customers the choice to either consent or decline the use of their personal details for advertising, product promotion, and various commercial activities. This breach was confirmed by the National Competition Commission (NCC) under the Ministry of Industry and Trade.

    Additional Violations

    Furthermore, Xiaomi Vietnam was found guilty of not informing consumers about its use of influencers for product promotion, using their images and endorsements without due notice. The firm was also penalized for incorporating illegal clauses in its general transaction terms.

    The NCC has mandated that the company immediately halt all illegal activities and promptly reassess and enhance their general transaction terms and conditions, consumer data protection policies, and activities related to the provision of information and product promotions through influencers. This is to ensure full compliance with the legal regulations.

    Xiaomi Vietnam, which has been operating since 2019 and is headquartered in Ho Chi Minh City, offers a variety of consumer electronics, such as smartphones, tablets, wearable devices, TVs, robot vacuum cleaners, and smart home devices.

    Questions & Answers

    What was Xiaomi Vietnam fined for?
    Xiaomi Vietnam was fined for breaching consumer protection laws, specifically in relation to the use of personal data for marketing purposes without consumer consent.

    What other violations was Xiaomi Vietnam charged with?
    Further charges against Xiaomi Vietnam included the failure to inform consumers about their use of influencers for product endorsement, and the inclusion of illegal provisions in their general transaction terms.

    What steps has the NCC mandated for Xiaomi Vietnam?
    The NCC has ordered Xiaomi Vietnam to immediately stop all illegal activities and to review and update their transaction terms, consumer data protection policies, and influencer-related promotional activities to adhere to legal regulations.

  • Ubs Fined $1m By Hong Kong SFC For Misclassification Of Professional Investors

    Ubs Fined $1m By Hong Kong SFC For Misclassification Of Professional Investors

    UBS, a major global bank, has recently found itself facing penalties from Hong Kong’s Securities and Futures Commission (SFC). The bank has been fined HK$8 million ($1 million) due to misclassification of its clients under the professional investor regime, according to the SFC.

    The Misclassification Issue

    Professional investors, as defined by local regulations, are clients with a minimum asset value of HK$8 million. It appears UBS failed to accurately classify these investors in accordance with these guidelines for an extended period of more than 12 years.

    This misclassification led to clients gaining access to securities pooled lending and investment products that were specifically designed for professional investors. Such developments raise significant concerns about the bank’s adherence to regulatory standards and risk management practices.

    The Scope of the Misclassification

    A self-review conducted by UBS over the course of four years, from July 2018 to July 2022, found notable discrepancies. As per their findings, there were about 560 joint accounts that were booked or managed in Hong Kong which were inaccurately categorized as professional investor accounts.

    This extensive issue points to systemic flaws in the bank’s internal oversight mechanisms, which need to be addressed to prevent such oversights from recurring in the future.

    Questions & Answers

    What is the professional investor regime?
    Professional investors are defined by local regulations as clients with a minimum asset value of HK$8 million.

    What consequences did UBS face for its misclassification of clients?
    UBS was fined HK$8 million ($1 million) by Hong Kong’s Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) due to the misclassification.

    What was the scale of the misclassification by UBS?
    A self-review by UBS indicated that approximately 560 joint accounts booked or managed in Hong Kong were incorrectly classified as professional investor accounts.

  • HelloFresh fined after criminal charges laid over subscription trap

    HelloFresh fined after criminal charges laid over subscription trap

    HelloFresh New Zealand, a subsidiary of global meal-kit supplier HelloFresh SE, has been hit with an NZ$845,000 ($748,294) penalty for deceiving customers into renewing their subscriptions. The imposition of this fine is the result of legal action undertaken by the Commerce Commission, New Zealand’s regulatory authority, in response to the company’s violation of the Fair Trading Act. HelloFresh New Zealand confessed to its true intentions of luring customers into renewing their food delivery service subscriptions without explicit awareness or agreement, a practice commonly known as a subscription trap.

    Deceptive Marketing Strategy

    Deputy Chair of the Commerce Commission, Anne Callinan, revealed the core of HelloFresh’s modus operandi. The company would cold call former customers under the guise of seeking customer feedback. However, the actual aim of these calls was to entice customers into reactivating their subscriptions by presenting them with discount vouchers. The company failed to clearly communicate that accepting these vouchers could result in the reactivation of the customers’ paid subscription.

    Over an 18-month period, HelloFresh made over a million calls to ex-customers and succeeded in reviving nearly 80,000 subscriptions. This action resulted in a surge of complaints to the Commerce Commission from disgruntled customers.

    Callinan provided further insight into the company’s misleading practices. “Upon reviewing a selection of call recordings, it became evident that agents downplayed or disregarded customers’ wishes, who on many occasions unequivocally stated their unwillingness to renew their subscription,” she stated. Callinan said that the deceptive behavior was a fundamental aspect of HelloFresh’s business operations and not an isolated incident.

    Lessons for Subscription-Based Services

    Callinan conveyed a stern warning to other subscription-based businesses in light of this case. The need for transparency regarding their terms and conditions and ensuring customers fully understand what they are signing up for is paramount.

    The Commerce Commission plans to maintain its focus on rectifying any misleading online sales behavior, including subscription traps. These practices remain a key focus area for the regulator.

    HelloFresh New Zealand operates under the umbrella of its Berlin-based parent company, HelloFresh SE, which is one of the largest meal-kit providers in the world with operations across 18 countries.

    Questions & Answers

    What was HelloFresh New Zealand fined for?
    HelloFresh New Zealand was fined NZ$845,000 ($748,294) for deceiving customers into renewing their subscriptions without clear communication or consent.

    What was the company’s deceptive marketing strategy?
    HelloFresh would cold call former customers under the pretext of gathering customer feedback. The actual aim was to persuade customers to reactivate their subscriptions by offering discount vouchers, without clearly stating that this would result in the reinstatement of their paid subscription.

    What is the key takeaway for other subscription-based businesses?
    Subscription-based businesses must ensure transparency in their terms and conditions and confirm that customers are fully informed before agreeing to sign up for their service.

  • Vietnamese Jewelry Store Fined For Selling Counterfeit Chanel Items Amidst Gold Price Surge

    Vietnamese Jewelry Store Fined For Selling Counterfeit Chanel Items Amidst Gold Price Surge

    In central Vietnam, a gold and jewelry store has been hit with a substantial fine of VND55 million (US$2,088.08) and has been instructed to obliterate its existing stock for engaging in the sale of falsified Chanel brand jewelry.

    Counterfeit Jewelry Seized

    The Market Management Department of Gia Lai Province reported that they recently discovered bracelets with the logo of Chanel, a renowned French fashion brand that has registered for protection in Vietnam, in the store. The provincial authority refrained from revealing the name of the establishment.

    The estimated total value of the seized goods is around VND35.7 million. The authority highlighted that all the seized jewelry items were counterfeit and lacked the requisite documentation to verify the origin.

    Surprise Raid and Future Plans

    These surprising findings resulted from an unexpected raid. In the aftermath of this event, the department has announced plans to maintain strict vigilance and continue inspecting other gold enterprises to prevent any further violations of intellectual property rights.

    Gold Prices Reach Record High

    In a related development, the prices of Vietnamese gold have witnessed a significant surge of 76% this year, reaching an all-time high of VND148 million per tael (equivalent to 37.5 grams or 1.2 ounces).

    Questions & Answers

    What was the penalty imposed on the jewelry store for selling counterfeit Chanel brand jewelry?
    The jewelry store in central Vietnam was fined VND55 million (US$2,088.08) and was ordered to destroy its existing stock.

    What did the Market Management Department of Gia Lai Province discover during their raid?
    During their surprise raid, the Market Management Department of Gia Lai Province discovered counterfeit Chanel brand bracelets being sold in the store.

    What are the future plans of the Market Management Department of Gia Lai Province?
    Following the discovery of counterfeit jewelry, the department plans to continue monitoring gold businesses to prevent any violations of intellectual property rights.

  • Amazon Settles For $2.5 Billion With FTC: Prime Subscribers To Benefit While Market Dominance Remains Unaffected

    Amazon Settles For $2.5 Billion With FTC: Prime Subscribers To Benefit While Market Dominance Remains Unaffected

    Amazon has agreed to a settlement of $2.5 billion with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), following allegations of misleading customers to increase subscriptions. The settlement, however, is unlikely to significantly impact Amazon, given that the company generates approximately the same amount every 33 hours. Amazon’s share value remained relatively stable following the news of the settlement.

    Prime Subscribers To Receive Reimbursements

    Approximately 35 million Prime subscribers are eligible for a share of a $1.5 billion fund established by Amazon as part of the settlement, with the remaining $1 billion to be paid as a fine to the FTC. A key point to note is that Amazon has not accepted any wrongdoing in relation to the settlement.

    Prime subscribers who signed up between 23rd June 2019 and 23rd June 2025 via certain offers, and utilised few of the associated benefits, will automatically receive $51 according to the terms of the settlement. In addition, those who attempted and failed to cancel their Prime subscription during this period will be able to submit claims for payment.

    Amazon’s Statement on Settlement

    Amazon released a statement indicating that the settlement will allow the company to continue to prioritize its customers. The company emphasized its commitment to ensuring that subscribing and unsubscribing to Prime is straightforward and that the service provides significant value to its millions of loyal members worldwide.

    As a requirement of the settlement, Amazon will be making changes to its Prime subscription process. This will include the introduction of a clear and conspicuous button to decline a Prime subscription and to facilitate easier cancellation. The company will also be more transparent with the terms and conditions of subscriptions during enrollment and will engage an independent supervisor to oversee compliance.

    Amazon maintains that most of the required actions are already in progress, with little need for additional changes. However, in the FTC’s case, it alleged that Amazon executives disregarded recommendations to clarify the subscription and cancellation procedures between 2017 and 2022.

    FTC’s Tough-on-tech Victory

    The settlement is seen as a significant success for the FTC’s stringent tech regulation policy, marking the second-largest restitution in the history of the agency. FTC Chair, Andrew Ferguson, hailed the settlement as a monumental win for the millions of Americans frustrated with deceptive subscriptions that are challenging to cancel.

    The settlement arose during an FTC trial in Seattle federal court, where it was argued that Amazon sought to enroll members indiscriminately. The agency suggested that Amazon’s subscription and cancellation practices were deceptive, citing internal discussions referring to the methods as “‘a bit of a shady world” and “an unspoken cancer.”

    Impact on Prime’s Market Dominance

    Despite the settlement, the market dominance of Prime, a key growth driver for Amazon, is not expected to be significantly affected. Prime, introduced in 2005 at $79 per year, rose to $139 in 2022 and generated $23.9 billion in subscription revenue in the first half of 2025.

    Although Amazon has committed to amending certain practices as part of the agreement, analysts do not anticipate these changes to affect Prime’s popularity. Zak Stambor, an Emarketer analyst, points out that despite the changes facilitating easier cancellation, the program remains deeply embedded in most American households.

    Questions & Answers

    What is the total sum of the Amazon-FTC settlement?
    The settlement totals $2.5 billion, with $1.5 billion set aside as reimbursements for Prime subscribers and the remaining $1 billion being paid as fines to the FTC.

    What changes is Amazon expected to implement as part of the settlement?
    The company will introduce a clear and conspicuous button for declining Prime subscriptions and simplify the cancellation process. It will also work on improving the transparency of subscription terms and conditions during enrollment.

    Will the settlement affect the market dominance of Amazon Prime?
    While Amazon will make changes to some of its practices as part of the settlement, analysts don’t forecast these changes to significantly affect Prime’s market appeal.