Guide
Guide: Exposure & Warnings
A compilation of quality records from public media reports and market-regulator inspections at glasses markets: typical cases of counterfeit big-name brands, "three-no" products, and false advertising, along with the outcomes. Check this list before visiting any market.
| Date | Location | Issue | Severity | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-18 | Siming District, Xiamen, Fujian | Xiamen Siming District Market Supervision Bureau: Laifu Glasses was found to sell counterfeit and rebranded myopia-control lenses for children; the situation is basically confirmed and a case has been opened. Source: CCTV.com · CCTV “News 30 Minutes” | High | Case opened |
| 2026-10-18 | Danyang, Jiangsu | Danyang Market Supervision Bureau (Jiangsu): four companies — Yaocheng Optical, Boda Optical, Duoaimei Glasses and Jicai Lenses — were found to have irregular lens labeling and to publish false advertising; cases have been opened. Source: China Economic Net · Sina (via CCTV.com) | Medium | Case opened |
| 2026-09 | Shenzhen Henggang Glasses City | A reporter visited 8 optical shops as a consumer; 5 of them proactively offered counterfeit frames of CHANEL, PRADA, GUCCI and other luxury brands, kept in closed cabinets, and some refused to be photographed. Vendors claimed they were "original factory stock," identical to boutique items. | High | Shenzhen Market Supervision Administration Longgang Bureau lawfully seized the goods suspected of trademark infringement and opened a case for investigation; Henggang Sub-district Office held an on-site meeting with the property management and eliminated safety hazards. |
| 2026-08 | Glasses market near Beijing Panjiayuan | CCTV investigation: Vendors marketed "UV-1," a grade from an obsolete standard, as equivalent to "UV400," the highest protection level; multiple shops sold "three-no" sunglasses with no implementation standard, no manufacturer and no certificate of conformity. The reporter sent 10 pairs for testing, only 1 passed. The reporter spent RMB 410 (USD 61.09) on 4 pairs; the frames and packaging had no implementation standard, manufacturer, certificate or product label. Of the 10 pairs tested, 6 had no label, 2 had unclear markings, 1 was marked Category 3 but actually measured 76.6% transmittance (actually Category 1); factory personnel said "UV400? That's all fake" and "certificates can be pasted on — products without national standards can also have them." | High | Chaoyang District Market Supervision Bureau launched a special inspection campaign, lawfully impounding suspected non-compliant and "three-no" products; the case is under further investigation. |
| 2026-06 | Shenzhen, Guangdong | 2025 product-quality supervision random inspection of eyewear: 260 batches of custom-fitted glasses, lenses and frames, 2 batches failed; failed items were "unilateral deviation between horizontal optical center and pupil" and "luminous transmittance performance." | Medium | The notice required sellers to immediately stop selling non-compliant products, to accept returns requested by consumers, and to deal with producers and sellers according to law. |
| 2026-04 | Rizhao, Shandong | Rizhao Market Supervision Bureau reported the 2025 special supervision random inspection of eyewear product quality: 175 batches inspected, 167 qualified (95.4% pass rate; optical resin lenses 100% pass); 8 batches failed (4.6% failure rate) — 7 batches of custom-fitted glasses and 1 batch of ready-made reading glasses. | Medium | District and county market-regulation departments ordered non-compliant enterprises to rectify, opened cases for punishment and conducted timely re-inspections; clarified the quantity and whereabouts of non-compliant products, and urged producers and sellers to remove and seal them. |
| 2026-03 | Danyang, Jiangsu | Danyang Market Supervision Bureau's June 2025 inspection found that Danyang Guanyu Optical Co., Ltd. was selling sunglasses and frames marked "MONTBLANC" and "Cartier" (the party admitted they were counterfeit), with a case value of RMB 8,660 (USD 1,290.34). | Medium | Ordered to immediately cease infringement and correct the illegal conduct; infringing goods confiscated; illegal gains of RMB 304 (USD 45.30) confiscated; fine of RMB 21,650 (USD 3,225.85). |
| 2026-02 | Nationwide (State Administration for Market Regulation) | SAMR disclosed: as of end-2025, market-regulation departments nationwide had cumulatively investigated 2,157 quality-violation cases involving glasses and lenses, with a case value of 3.7738 million yuan and fines and confiscations of 5.6277 million yuan; the core issue in eyewear product recall cases was vertical optical-center deviation not meeting national standards. | Medium | SAMR guided the China Consumers Association to issue a consumption alert, clarifying that "blue-light protection" does not equal myopia prevention and warning against misleading claims that "myopia can be cured"; for metrology-non-compliant products, it required verification of inspection-equipment calibration certificates and personnel qualifications. |
| 2026-01 | Anhui | Anhui Provincial Market Supervision Administration reported the 2025 provincial product-quality supervision random inspection: 15 batches of sunglasses inspected (13 from physical stores, 2 from e-commerce), 2 failed; failed items were polarizing lenses and polarizing sunglasses, sunglass lens dimensions, and luminous transmittance. | Medium | The notice only published the failed batches and items; results are listed in the annex, and the original text did not mention specific penalties or decisions for the enterprises involved. |
| 2025-12 | Nanjing (production in Danyang; bonded warehouses in Guangzhou and Zhengzhou) | The company squatted Chinese trademarks such as "Essilor" and, in the name of "overseas flagship stores" authorized by a Hong Kong shell company, sold counterfeit-brand glasses through cross-border e-commerce retail imports; over 600 unsold pairs were seized at Guangzhou and Zhengzhou bonded warehouses, more than 350 pairs had been sold, with illegal gains exceeding 450,000 yuan. | High | The person in charge was sentenced to 3 years and 8 months in prison for the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks, plus a fine of RMB 300,000 (USD 44,700); illegal gains of RMB 450,000 (USD 67,050) were recovered; seized goods were confiscated and destroyed. |
| 2025-07 | Danyang, Jiangsu | Case opened November 2024: an optical company used the term "anti-fatigue" when selling men's rimless glasses on its Tmall flagship store; the product was an ordinary pair of glasses and the party could not substantiate the functional claim, so it was deemed to have published false advertising. | Medium | Ordered to correct the illegal conduct; fined RMB 800 (USD 119.20). |
| 2024-12 | Shangcheng District, Hangzhou, Zhejiang | January 2024 inspection: an optical store in Hubin Sub-district, Shangcheng District displayed two panels reading "108 Optometry Center — Zeiss Officially Authorized Store" and operated optometry and fitting services under that name; verification showed it could not provide official Zeiss authorization and had not actually obtained authorization. | Medium | Found to violate Article 6, Item 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, constituting unauthorized use of another's influential enterprise name. |
| 2024-08 | Shanghai | Market regulators inspected 30 batches of sunglasses from 30 brands; 4 failed (13.3% failure rate) for luminous transmittance, polarizing lenses and polarizing sunglasses, and labeling — e.g., one brand's sunglass lenses actually measured 13.4 (right) and 14.8 (left) in transmittance (standard should be >43.0). | Medium | Relevant operators were ordered to immediately stop selling non-compliant products, fully clear inventory and products on sale, and producers and sellers of non-compliant products were transferred to the local market-regulation departments for investigation and handling. |
| 2024-05 | Hangzhou, Zhejiang | Citywide special metrology inspection of optical fitting premises: 627 person-times deployed, 305 optical fitting units inspected, 1,062 measuring instruments examined on-site; 62 units had failed to apply for mandatory verification of measuring instruments or continued using them past the verification period. | Medium | 42 units ordered to rectify; 20 units had cases opened for investigation and punishment. |
Blacklist Exposures
GuideGuide: Blacklist ExposuresA compilation of exposure cases from public media reports and mar…
Read more →Spotting Fakes
GuideGuide: Spotting FakesThree quick checks before you buy: verify the label for manufacturer n…
Read more →How to Verify Authenticity
GuideGuide: How to Verify AuthenticityA four-step method to verify genuine lenses: check the las…
Read more →