Can I compare my product to competitors in Chinese advertising?
The short answer is yes — but with significant restrictions that foreign businesses often underestimate. China’s Advertising Law permits comparative advertising, but the rules governing what you can say and how you can say it are far stricter than in many Western markets. In 2024 alone, the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) handled over 3,800 cases involving unfair comparative advertising, issuing fines totaling approximately ¥450 million. Understanding the boundaries of permissible comparison is essential for any foreign brand advertising in China.
What Does Chinese Law Say About Comparative Advertising?
Comparative advertising in China is governed primarily by Article 13 of the Advertising Law, which prohibits advertisements that “disparage the goods or services of other producers and operators.” The Law Against Unfair Competition further strengthens this prohibition. Together, these laws create a framework where comparative claims are not outright banned, but any comparison that could be construed as negative or disparaging toward a named or identifiable competitor is prohibited.
According to a 2024 guidance document issued by SAMR, comparative advertising is permitted when it: (1) compares objective, verifiable features of products or services; (2) uses factual data that can be independently verified; (3) does not single out a specific competitor by name or identifying characteristic; and (4) does not use superlative language suggesting superiority. The key distinction is between “informative comparison” (generally permitted) and “disparaging comparison” (prohibited).
A 2025 study by the China University of Political Science and Law analyzed 127 SAMR administrative rulings on comparative advertising between 2020 and 2024. The study found that 82 percent of violations involved advertisements that either named a specific competitor or used identifying characteristics that made the competitor recognizable to consumers.
Can You Name a Competitor in Chinese Ads?
Naming a specific competitor in advertising is strongly discouraged and, in most cases, prohibited under Chinese law. Unlike the United States, where naming competitors in comparative advertising is common practice (e.g., “Brand X vs. Brand Y”), Chinese regulators consider this practice inherently disparaging. SAMR has consistently held that any advertising that names a competitor — even if the comparison appears factual on its surface — violates Article 13 of the Advertising Law.
In a landmark 2024 case, a foreign home appliance company was fined ¥3.2 million for a television advertisement that directly compared its air conditioner’s energy efficiency rating to that of a named Chinese competitor. SAMR’s ruling stated that even though the comparison was supported by third-party test data, the act of naming the competitor constituted disparagement because it highlighted a specific competitor’s inferior performance.
The only exception is when the comparison is mandated by law or regulation, such as when pharmaceutical companies must compare their products to reference drugs for bioequivalence purposes. Even in these cases, the comparison must be clinical in language and cannot imply qualitative superiority.
What About Implied Comparisons — Without Naming Names?
Implied comparative advertising — where you do not name a competitor but use language that suggests superiority over unnamed alternatives — occupies a gray zone in Chinese advertising law. In principle, vague superiority claims such as “better than the leading brand” or “preferred by more customers” are permitted as long as they are verifiable and not misleading. However, SAMR’s enforcement record shows that implied comparisons are increasingly scrutinized.
A 2024 SAMR circular on comparative advertising introduced the concept of “identifiable disparagement” — meaning that even if a competitor is not named, the advertisement violates the law if consumers can reasonably identify which competitor is being compared. For example, saying “Our platform has more users than any other foreign e-commerce platform in China” could be considered identifiable disparagement if the market only has two or three foreign e-commerce platforms and consumers can easily identify the target.
Foreign businesses should be particularly cautious with implied comparisons that reference market position: “We are the fastest-growing logistics provider” or “Number one in customer satisfaction for imported beauty products” could be interpreted as comparative claims suggesting other providers are slower or less satisfactory. SAMR requires that any superiority claim be supported by verifiable data from recognized third-party sources.
What Types of Comparisons Are Explicitly Permitted?
China’s advertising framework does permit some forms of comparison, provided they meet specific criteria. The following types of comparative advertising are generally considered compliant:
- Product category vs. other categories. Comparing a product type to another product type — such as LED lighting vs. incandescent lighting — is generally acceptable, as long as no specific brand or manufacturer is referenced. This type of “educational comparison” helps consumers make informed choices without disparaging any particular competitor.
- Before-and-after demonstrations. Showing your own product’s effects without referencing competitors is permissible, provided the demonstration is conducted under realistic conditions and the results are reproducible. SAMR’s 2024 guidance requires that before-and-after results be accompanied by a disclaimer indicating that “individual results may vary.”
- Technical specifications comparisons. Listing your product’s technical features without claiming superiority over unnamed competitors is generally acceptable. For example, “Our vehicle has a range of 600 kilometers” is fine. “Our vehicle has a longer range than any competitor in its class” requires substantiation and is subject to greater scrutiny.
- Price comparisons over time. Comparing your current price to your own historical price is permitted, as long as the reference price is genuine and not inflated. However, comparing your price to a competitor’s price is prohibited unless the information is publicly available and presented without commentary.
What About Comparative Claims on Social Media and E-Commerce?
Comparative advertising on Chinese social media platforms — including Douyin, Xiaohongshu, WeChat, and Weibo — is subject to the same legal restrictions but faces additional platform-specific enforcement. Major Chinese platforms have their own content review systems that actively flag and remove comparative advertising content.
Douyin’s advertising policy, for instance, explicitly prohibits any content that “implies superiority over competing products” in ad creatives, including side-by-side comparisons, A/B test results, and “better than” language. Xiaohongshu’s content moderation system flags phrases such as “better than [brand]” or “unlike other products” for manual review. WeChat Official Account articles containing comparative claims are subject to immediate removal upon complaint.
On e-commerce platforms like Tmall and JD.com, comparative claims in product descriptions are common but face stricter enforcement. A 2025 study of Tmall merchant compliance found that 14 percent of product listings in the electronics category contained comparative claims that could violate the Advertising Law. Tmall’s content review system automatically rejects listings containing competitor brand names or explicit comparisons.
What Are the Consequences of Violating Comparative Advertising Rules?
Penalties for illegal comparative advertising in China are significant. Under Article 59 of the Advertising Law, violations can result in fines of ¥100,000 to ¥2 million, plus orders to cease the advertisement and publish a correction. Under the Law Against Unfair Competition, additional penalties may apply, including fines of up to 5 percent of the violator’s annual turnover.
Beyond direct penalties, violators face practical consequences. SAMR maintains a public database of companies found to have engaged in illegal comparative advertising, and competitors can file civil lawsuits seeking damages for reputational harm. In a 2024 civil case, a Chinese domestic company successfully sued a foreign competitor for ¥5 million in damages after the foreign company’s advertising campaign unfairly compared its products to the Chinese company’s offerings.
Foreign brands also face specific risks. A violation of comparative advertising rules can trigger broader regulatory scrutiny — including tax audits, product quality inspections, and customs checks — that can disrupt China operations. According to a 2025 survey by the American Chamber of Commerce in China, 38 percent of foreign companies reported increased regulatory scrutiny following an advertising compliance violation.
How to Frame Competitive Messaging That Complies
Foreign businesses can promote their products’ advantages without running afoul of China’s comparative advertising rules by following these guidelines:
- Focus on your product, not on competitors. Describe your product’s features, benefits, and quality without referencing other market participants. Let consumers draw their own conclusions.
- Use factual, verifiable claims. Any claim about your product’s performance should be supported by third-party test data or recognized certifications. SAMR’s 2024 guidance requires that substantiating documents be maintained for at least two years after the advertising campaign ends.
- Avoid superlatives without substantiation. Claims such as “best,” “number one,” “leading,” or “most advanced” require robust evidence and are subject to high scrutiny. Consider using specific, qualifiable language instead: “Our product meets GB/T 1234-2024 standard” rather than “Our product is the best in class.”
- Obtain legal review before publication. Have all comparative or competitive-sounding advertising content reviewed by a China-qualified advertising law specialist. The cost of legal review (typically ¥5,000–¥15,000 per campaign) is minimal compared to the potential fine.
- Monitor competitor complaints. Chinese competitors actively monitor foreign brands’ advertising and file complaints with SAMR. Establish a process for responding to competitor complaints quickly and maintaining documentation of your advertising’s compliance basis.
Key Differences Between China and Western Jurisdictions
Foreign marketing teams accustomed to advertising in the US, EU, or UK should be aware of key differences in China’s approach to comparative advertising. In the United States, comparative advertising is explicitly encouraged by the FTC as a means of informing consumers, and naming competitors is generally permitted as long as comparisons are truthful. China takes the opposite approach: comparative advertising is tolerated rather than encouraged, and naming competitors is presumptively prohibited.
In the European Union, the Comparative Advertising Directive allows comparisons on material, verifiable features as long as they are not misleading and do not discredit the competitor. China’s standard is stricter: any comparison that could harm a competitor’s reputation — even if factually accurate — may violate the law. The burden of proof is also reversed in many cases: in China, the advertiser must prove the comparison is not disparaging, rather than the complainant proving it is false.
Understanding these differences is critical for foreign brands whose global marketing campaigns are created in jurisdictions with more permissive comparative advertising standards. Simply translating a global campaign into Chinese without modification is a common and costly mistake. A 2024 survey by the China-Britain Business Council found that 41 percent of foreign brands had to significantly modify their global advertising materials for the Chinese market, with comparative claims being the most frequently modified element.
Launch Your China Business — No Flight Required
china-gateway360.com
