The acne skincare brand under Hanfang Pharmaceuticals claiming "results in 1 hour" was publicly exposed and face-planted by regulatory data; when requesting the report, customer service "went offline."

Log in to Sina Finance App and search for [Information Disclosure] to see more evaluation levels.

(Source: First Wind)

Recently, Shandong Hanfang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Hanfang Pharma”) submitted an IPO prospectus to the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. The prospectus shows that as of September 30, 2025, sales of its flagship product, Fufang Huangbai Liquid Topical Solution, account for 99.7% of total revenue. It also notes that whether the company can successfully diversify its income sources to reduce reliance on Fufang Huangbai Liquid Topical Solution depends on the commercial success of its traditional Chinese medicine products and cosmetics based on its classic formula.

However, compared to the “robust” plan in the IPO prospectus, product marketing appears somewhat “weak.” A reporter from Wind Finance, posing as a consumer, inquired about the main product of Hanfang Pharma’s beauty brand Xilai Duo—Xilai Duo Huangbai Liquid Acne Gel—regarding its acne-removing effectiveness. The e-commerce platform customer service promised “visible results in 1 hour” and “quickly feeling anti-inflammatory and soothing effects after application.” But when asked for a clear single test report, the information shifted from “immediate reading” to a long period of “no reply,” with no further response.

Online cosmetics sales have become a major area of quality and safety issues. Can Hanfang Pharma, backed by a pharmaceutical company entering the beauty track, maintain compliance in marketing and break through the “single-leg” dilemma?

01

Bottleneck:

Protection period countdown and medical insurance cost control double pressure

According to the IPO prospectus, Hanfang Pharma’s revenue mainly comes from three categories: Fufang Huangbai Liquid Topical Solution, cosmetics, and Angong Niuhuang Wan. Among these, revenue is highly concentrated in the flagship product, Fufang Huangbai Liquid Topical Solution. In 2023, 2024, and from January to September 2025, the company’s total revenue was 1.053 billion yuan, 992 million yuan, and 803 million yuan, respectively. Sales of Fufang Huangbai Liquid Topical Solution accounted for 99.8%, 99.8%, and 99.7%, respectively, making it the absolute pillar of revenue.

The company explains that this product is the only approved topical dosage form in the domestic and international Chinese medicine field, recognized as a second-class national protected Chinese medicine variety, with a “high substitution threshold” and “rigid demand unaffected by economic cycles,” supporting high gross margins.

However, this seemingly solid “moat” is actually approaching its end. The IPO prospectus clearly discloses that the second-class Chinese medicine protection status for Fufang Huangbai Liquid Topical Solution will expire on July 20, 2030. This means Hanfang Pharma has just over four years left to enjoy the “monopoly” benefits. The prospectus also admits that multiple factors could negatively impact sales, including but not limited to the expiration or non-renewal of its second-class Chinese medicine protection status.

Moreover, although the product has been included in the National Medical Insurance Directory, this is not a permanent “golden ticket.” The risk warning in the prospectus states that if it is removed from the directory, its reimbursement level is lowered, or if prices are significantly reduced due to negotiations, profit margins will be directly squeezed.

02

Current situation:

E-commerce sales less than one-tenth of competitors, high prices hinder growth

In contrast, the company’s hoped-for second growth engine—cosmetics and Angong Niuhuang Wan—performs weakly.

During the same period, these two categories accounted for only 0.2%, 0.2%, and 0.3% of total sales. More notably, the prospectus states that in 2023, both cosmetics and Angong Niuhuang Wan had negative gross profit and gross margin, mainly due to losses in the cosmetics segment. Given that this segment’s revenue still accounts for only 0.3%, whether it has achieved true self-sustaining profitability remains a key concern.

Investigations found that Hanfang Pharma’s beauty brand Xilai Duo launched series products including Huangbai Liquid Acne Gel, masks, cleansers, and serums. Public information shows that Xilai Duo’s official operations on major e-commerce platforms have been less than a year.

As a new brand, sales performance is somewhat sluggish. Data from major e-commerce platforms shows that the best-selling product is Xilai Duo Huangbai Liquid Acne Gel, with a maximum of over 1,000 units sold as of March 19. Other products only sold a few hundred or single digits. In comparison, top products in acne gels and facial serums on other platforms often sell in the thousands, tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, with a clear gap.

Industry insiders analyze that “bad timing” is not the main reason; rather, the “high price and low configuration” strategy is the key obstacle. The 15g single pack of Xilai Duo Huangbai Liquid Acne Gel is priced at 233 yuan, with a discounted price of about 198 yuan, far above mainstream acne products. For a new brand lacking market recognition, such high pricing makes it difficult to attract customers and limits sales.

03

Investigation:

Claims of “visible in 1 hour” face data contradiction

Under sales pressure, Xilai Duo frequently promotes “quick effect” in marketing.

On product detail pages on e-commerce platforms, Xilai Duo Huangbai Liquid Acne Gel (license number LuG Zhuang Network Backup No. 2021502418) claims “significant effect in 1 hour for sudden acne”; Huangbai Liquid Acne Mask (license number LuG Zhuang Network Backup No. 2024000542) states “plus anti-redness and repair, redness fades in one sheet.” Customer service also explicitly said: “There is a test report for 1-hour effect, meaning redness will decrease,” and “for sudden large red pimples, applying it quickly relieves inflammation and soothes.”

Article 21 of the “Regulations on the Supervision and Administration of Online Cosmetic Business” stipulates that cosmetic operators on platforms must ensure that any claims about product safety and efficacy are consistent with the labels and efficacy basis in their registration or filing information. However, a review of the National Medical Products Administration’s domestic cosmetic filing platform shows discrepancies between these promotional claims and the efficacy test results in the filings.

The efficacy evaluation results for Xilai Duo Huangbai Liquid Acne Gel show that “compared to before use, the area of skin redness significantly decreased after 4 weeks of use (P<0.05),” with no mention of “effect in 1 hour”; similarly, the results for the mask show “after 3 days of use, skin pigment EI value significantly decreased,” also without any “redness fading in one sheet” claim.

Furthermore, promotional content on different platforms contains contradictory explanations. For example, one platform’s “significant in 1 hour” claim cites: “Data from third-party clinical testing reports, 32 subjects used Xilai Duo Huangbai Liquid Acne Gel as instructed by dermatologists, with redness reduced by 32.56% after 3 hours, and acne volume decreased by 1.67%.” Another platform states: “Data from third-party clinical testing reports, 32 subjects used the product as instructed, with redness reduced by 32.56% after 1 hour, and acne volume decreased by 1.67%.”

To verify further, the reporter contacted customer service via official stores on these platforms, requesting clear test reports. One store initially responded quickly and sent a blurred “test report” image that was unreadable. When asked for a clearer original report, the previously responsive customer service suddenly fell silent and has not responded since. Other platforms’ customer service also failed to provide reports.

The contradiction between the large “1-hour effect” claim and the small-font citations referencing “3 hours” is logically problematic. More critically, these claims conflict with the conclusions in the “Human Efficacy Evaluation Test Report” filed with the National Medical Products Administration. The report states that “compared to before use, the redness area significantly decreased after 4 weeks of use,” with no mention of effect within 1 hour. Using fake or altered reports would constitute fraud under legal standards, and consumers could claim punitive damages under the Consumer Rights Protection Law.

Consumers have the right to request the merchant to provide the original test reports. According to the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests, consumers are entitled to know the efficacy proof materials. When merchants display vague reports and refuse to provide clear originals upon request, they are effectively obstructing consumers’ right to information.

In legal proceedings, merchants must provide original reports for verification. Outside of litigation, they may refuse for various reasons, including operational convenience.

If merchants cannot produce clear, matching test reports supporting their “1-hour effect” claim, their promotional statements lose basis, further confirming false advertising. If the reports are forged or altered, it constitutes typical fraud, and consumers have the right to claim “three times damages” under Article 55 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law.

The reporter contacted and sent inquiries regarding business operations, financial performance, product promotion, filing consistency, internal control, and compliance responses, but has not received any reply as of publication.

Editor / Tian Liang, Wind Finance