I. Prospects of the Pet Economy and Methods of Celebrity Endorsement

Nobel laureate Konrad Lorenz once stated in The History of Pets: “The more urbanized humans become, the farther they are from nature, and the more important pets become in human life.” In recent years, as the average household size in China shrinks, the aging population intensifies, and the prevalence of one-person households rises due to the trend of young people avoiding marriage and childbearing, pets are increasingly regarded as family members by empty nesters and single individuals. They have become a crucial outlet for emotional sustenance, and their penetration rate in households continues to rise. The market potential unleashed by the “silver economy” and the “single economy” has also given rise to the wave of the “pet economy.”

The “pet economy” (i.e., the “it economy”) has gradually formed an ecosystem. It encompasses a complete industrial chain centered around pets, covering the production and sale of pet breeding, pet trading, pet food (dry food, wet food, snacks, nutritional supplements, etc.), pet supplies (clothing, toys, outdoor accessories, etc.), as well as the development trend of “intelligent pet care, fresh food, refined cleanliness, medicalized health care, and humanized travel and play,” which has further spawned consumer services such as pet vaccines and medical treatment, pet boarding, pet photography, pet insurance, pet training, and pet cremation. According to the 2022-2023 China Pet Industry Development and Consumer Survey Research Report published by iiMedia Research, the scale of China’s pet economy industry in 2022 will reach 493.6 billion yuan, a year-on-year increase of 25.2%, and it is expected to reach 811.4 billion yuan by 2025.

(Image source: iiMedia Research, 2022-2023 China Pet Industry Development and Consumer Survey Research Report)

In the era of traffic, pet brands and celebrity endorsement cooperation have become highly diverse, ranging from the “hard advertising” model of direct endorsement as a spokesperson to the “soft advertising” model of “grass-planting” and serving as an “experience officer.” According to the 2021 Pet Food Industry Consumption Insight Report published by CBNData, both “grass-planting” and direct celebrity endorsements are preferred media channels for pet owners.

(Image source: CBNData, 2021 Pet Food Industry Consumption Insight Report)

In such commercial endorsement activities, both pet brands and celebrity endorsers often face legal issues such as “prohibited endorsement areas,” “disguised endorsements,” and “endorsement failures.” Therefore, from the perspective of the pet industry, the author discusses several common types of legal behavior and related risks in celebrity endorsement activities and proposes corresponding compliance recommendations.

II. Can Celebrities Endorse Pet Food?

From the Perspective of Industry Regulation

China does not have a specific regulatory subdivision for “pet food”; it is generally classified as “animal feed” and supervised by the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Bureau under the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs. Therefore, the production, sale, and advertising of pet food are governed by normative documents such as the Regulations on the Administration of Feed and Feed Additives, the Measures for the Administration of Pet Feed, the Licensing Conditions for Pet Feed Production Enterprises, the Regulations on Pet Feed Labeling, and the Regulations on Pet Feed Hygiene.

The Advertising Law regulates advertising and endorsement activities in three situations: “absolute prohibition of advertising,” “advertising permitted but endorsement prohibited,” and “restrictions on endorsement using specific identities, titles, or images.” According to Article 21, Paragraph 2 of the Advertising Law: “Advertisements for pesticides, veterinary medicines, feed, and feed additives shall not use the names or images of scientific research institutes, academic institutions, technology promotion organizations, industry associations, or professionals or users for recommendations or proofs.” Pet food falls under the category of “restrictions on endorsement using specific identities, titles, or images.”

Therefore, it can first be clarified: Pet food, as animal feed, is allowed to be advertised and endorsed, but there are certain restrictions on the scope of endorsers.

So, do celebrities fall within the scope of “permitted” or “restricted” endorsers? Before discussing this question, it is necessary to explore the legislative purpose: Why are special provisions made for feed, restricting the scope of endorsers?

The reason is not difficult to understand. After all, feed differs from daily products that come into direct contact with consumers. When making purchase decisions, consumers tend to rely on “authoritative recommendations” and “previous user reviews.” If “scientific research institutes, academic institutions, technology promotion organizations, industry associations, or professionals”—entities with specialized knowledge—are allowed to endorse feed, they would inevitably lose neutrality and objectivity in a commercial context, creating an effect of “expert endorsement.” The Advertising Law, aiming to protect consumers from being misled, imposes such endorsement restrictions on these special “professional subjects.”

Clearly, the vast majority of celebrities do not fall under the aforementioned “professional subjects.” However, a more contentious issue is: Could celebrities be restricted from endorsing feed (pet food) because they fall under the category of “user” in the aforementioned provision? In terms of interpretation and application, once this assumption is accepted, a “paradox” would arise in practice. Under Article 38 of the Advertising Law, which states that “an advertising endorser shall not make recommendations or proofs for goods they have not used or services they have not received,” celebrities may only endorse products they have used. Thus, both celebrities and pet brands would inevitably face confusion—“Should the endorsing celebrity be a user or not?”

In Judicial Practice

In the case of William Chan endorsing the pet food brand “Partner,” the advertisement described him as “Partner’s spokesperson, a veteran cat owner, who chooses Partner for all pet food, freeze-dried treats, canned food, and snacks, whether for cats or dogs.” The Xiaoshan District Market Supervision Administration of Hangzhou imposed a fine of 960,000 yuan. Interestingly, Ning Jing endorsed pig feed in earlier years, but no penalty was found in public records. These two cases of celebrity endorsements illustrate the difference between “endorsement with one’s image” and “endorsement in the capacity of a user.” That is, Ning Jing was clearly not a user (pig farmer); she endorsed pig feed using her personal image. In contrast, William Chan endorsed in the capacity of a user (a veteran cat owner).

Although in the case of William Chan endorsing “Partner,” the regulatory authority only penalized the advertiser, not the endorser, this still serves as a warning for other pet brands intending to hire celebrities for endorsements. In endorsement practice, this nearly “irresolvable” conflict in legal application has given rise to a “compromise solution”: In public-facing communications, the celebrity acts merely as an “image spokesperson” for pet food, avoiding “user-capacity” recommendations; when dealing with regulators, they can provide evidence that they have used the pet food.

However, this approach clearly fails to address either the legislative purpose or the practical judicial issues. Moreover, there is no clear boundary between “image endorsement” and “user-capacity recommendation.” Some celebrities are known “pet lovers,” and even if they merely serve as image spokespersons, they effectively achieve the same effect as a user recommendation.

In this regard, the author believes that celebrities should be allowed to endorse pet food, for the following reasons:

The term “user” in Article 21, Paragraph 2 of the Advertising Law should be limited to “users of specific products requiring long-term and large-scale use.” For example, pig feed, due to its wide and large-scale use, directly affects the livestock industry and the food safety of the people’s dining table. The consumers of such products are often farmers with relatively low educational levels, so prohibiting pig farmers from using their experience to endorse pig feed—to avoid consumer misinformation—is both legally compliant and reasonable. However, for the pet food industry, such concerns do not exist. Therefore, it is inappropriate to treat all “users” of feed as “users” under Article 21 of the Advertising Law; otherwise, it would not only render many products, including pet food, unable to be endorsed, but would also effectively nullify the relevant legal provisions.

The Guiding Opinions on Further Regulating Celebrity Advertising Endorsement Activities (hereinafter referred to as the “Seven-Ministry Guiding Opinions”), jointly issued by the State Administration for Market Regulation, the Cyberspace Administration of China, and five other departments on October 31, 2022, only provides in Article 3, Paragraph 3 that “enterprises engaged in the production of pesticides, veterinary medicines, feed, feed additives, crop seeds, forest seeds, grass seeds, breed livestock, aquatic fry, and seed breeding industries shall not use professionals for advertising endorsement activities.” This has already narrowed the restriction on pet food endorsement to “professionals,” without prohibiting celebrities—who are “non-professionals”—from endorsing pet food.

In summary, based on current legal provisions, new regulatory requirements, and considering the differences between pet food and general animal feed, the author believes that celebrities should be allowed to endorse pet food. This approach not only safeguards the effective implementation of the law but also helps promote the prosperity of the pet market economy.

III. Does a Celebrity’s “Joining the Company” or Serving as an “Experience Officer” Constitute an Endorsement?

To avoid endorsement risks, a trend emerged in celebrity endorsement activities where celebrities would “join the company as an employee” or serve as “chief experience officer” or “official preferred officer” in an attempt to circumvent the identity of “endorser.” Based on news reports such as Jay Chou becoming the “Chief Surprise Officer” of Vipshop, Liu Tao announcing her “joining” Alibaba as the “Official Selection Officer” of Juhuasuan, and Angelababy serving as the “Chief Fashion Officer” of a cross-border brand under Meilishuo, it is evident that “employment-style” or “experience officer-style” endorsements have gradually become a trend in the industry. If the pet industry adopts such methods, will they be deemed as endorsements?

The author believes that if celebrities ostensibly “join” the advertiser’s company or serve as “experience officers” but in reality use their own names or images to make recommendations or proofs for products or services, this still does not change their identity as advertising endorsers. In other words, if “experience officers” or “preferred officers” lack the title of endorser but act de facto as endorsers, they still constitute endorsement behavior.

It is noteworthy that regulators have also taken notice of this phenomenon of “disguised endorsement” by celebrities and have issued corresponding regulations:

The Shanghai Municipal Market Supervision Administration, in its Compliance Guidelines for Commercial Advertising Endorsement Activities issued on January 20, 2022, clearly stipulates: For entities with high name recognition, due to their high identity identifiability, even if the advertisement does not indicate their identity, but the public can identify them through their image, it constitutes the use of their own image and independent personality for advertising endorsement. Even if they use other identities not well-known to the public, such as “XX experience officer,” to make recommendations or proofs, this does not change their identity as an advertising endorser.

The Xiamen Municipal Market Supervision Administration, in its Compliance Guidelines for Commercial Advertising Endorsement Activities in Xiamen issued on August 11, 2022, Article 1, Paragraph 2, stipulates: If celebrities, social figures, etc., use identities such as “experience officer,” “recommendation officer,” “product officer,” or in the name of “partner,” “joining the company,” etc., to make recommendations or proofs for goods or services, but do not actually have a real investment, partnership, or labor contract relationship, this constitutes commercial advertising endorsement.

Additionally, the Seven-Ministry Guiding Opinions requires: “If a celebrity uses titles such as ‘experience officer,’ ‘recommendation officer,’ or ‘brand ambassador’ to endorse an enterprise or the overall brand image, the advertisement must indicate or explain the name of the product of that enterprise or brand that the celebrity uses.”

Thus, regulators adopt a “listen to words, observe actions” approach toward such “disguised endorsements,” easily penetrating the guise of “joining the company” or “experience officer” to reveal the substance of celebrity endorsement. This means that neither pet industry advertisers nor celebrities can continue to rely on such “circuitous endorsement” methods to circumvent legal risks.

IV. Does a Celebrity’s “Grass-Planting” Constitute an Endorsement?

“Grass-planting” (zhongcao) is an internet buzzword that refers to the act of recommending a product’s excellent quality to stimulate others’ desire to purchase, akin to planting a seed (grass) in someone’s mind. The process of growing shopping desire is likened to wild grass growth, hence the term. Compared with traditional endorsement methods, “grass-planting” often uses covert forms such as “unboxing demonstrations,” “product reviews,” “usage instructions,” and “science popularization of product knowledge” to package the behavior as personal sharing, making it appear distinct from the “recommendation or proof” feature of general endorsements.

Currently, an increasing number of celebrities are engaging in “grass-planting” on platforms such as Xiaohongshu (Little Red Book). To determine whether their “grass-planting” behavior constitutes personal sharing or a “soft advertising” endorsement, it is necessary to review the content of their short videos or graphic posts to assess whether they use their own names or images to make recommendations or proofs for goods or services.

The author believes: For ordinary “amateur” social media influencers, if their “grass-planting” merely takes the form of “science popularization, introduction, and sharing” without the more positive and affirmative “recommendation or proof” conduct, it does not constitute an endorsement. For celebrities, even if their “grass-planting” behavior does not directly or explicitly express an intention of “recommendation or proof” and lacks the name of inducement to purchase, due to their high fame and influence, it inevitably creates public consumer perception that “the celebrity’s image is positively bundled with product quality,” thereby achieving the substantive effect of celebrity endorsement for the product. Therefore, in practice, celebrities engaging in “grass-planting” are more likely to be deemed as engaging in endorsement behavior.

The Guidelines for Supervision and Enforcement of Commercial Advertising Endorsement Behavior issued by the Jiangsu Provincial Market Supervision Administration on April 10, 2022, to a certain extent reflects the attitude of some regulatory authorities. The guidelines include celebrity “grass-planting” within the scope of supervision, clearly stating that advertising endorsement behaviors that use “grass-planting” and other forms to covertly publish commercial advertisements, causing consumers to be unable to identify them as advertisements and being deceived or misled by the advertisement content, are illegal.

It is noteworthy that once “grass-planting” content is identified as a commercial advertisement, in addition to the risk of being deemed an endorsement, the celebrity’s act of publishing such content itself also constitutes advertising operation and publishing. Under the Advertising Law, the legal responsibilities of advertising operators and publishers are more stringent than those of advertising endorsers.

Additionally, the author notes that on platforms like Xiaohongshu, if users publish “grass-planting” content mentioning specific product brands without prior reporting, the platform may impose penalties such as “point deductions,” “traffic restriction,” or “account suspension.” This will inevitably have a significant impact on the advertising market, and the phenomenon of well-known individuals exploiting “grass-planting” to engage in disguised endorsements will gradually diminish. This also means that for the pet industry, using celebrity “grass-planting” to circumvent advertising endorsements will have very little room for operation.

V. Does a Celebrity’s “Livestream Sales” Constitute an Endorsement?

In addition to traditional advertising endorsement methods such as poster shooting and TV commercials, celebrities have also joined the new track of livestream sales in the rapidly rising environment of livestream e-commerce. Online livestream marketing combines the characteristics of “e-commerce + promotional sales + shopping guidance and selling.” It involves multiple subjects and complex legal relationships. Whether a celebrity’s livestream sales constitute endorsement behavior must be judged based on their specific role in the sales model and cannot be generalized. The author analyzes the following two scenarios:

If a celebrity establishes a product operation cooperation relationship with an MCN institution or merchant, sells the product in the livestream room, and receives commissions based on sales volume, then in this sales model, the celebrity is promoting the products they are selling themselves. Their identities as “endorser” and “advertiser” are absorbed by the identity of “commodity operator.” In other words, the act of “endorsing for oneself” is absorbed by the operational sales act of “selling for oneself.”

If a celebrity only receives a fee for appearing in the livestream and uses their own name or image to promote the product, then this conforms to the definition of an endorser under the Advertising Law, and the celebrity should bear the responsibility of an advertising endorser according to law.

In this regard, the Seven-Ministry Guiding Opinions clearly states: “Except where a celebrity acts as an advertiser to promote products they produce or sell themselves, if a celebrity, in commercial advertisements, makes recommendations or proofs for goods or services through image display, language, text, or actions, it should be legally deemed as advertising endorsement behavior. Even if the advertisement does not display the celebrity’s image, if it indicates the celebrity’s name and uses the celebrity’s name to recommend the product, the celebrity should be deemed to have engaged in advertising endorsement. If a celebrity uses a role they played in a film or television drama to recommend products in an advertisement, the celebrity himself or herself should be deemed to have engaged in advertising endorsement. If a celebrity introduces a product during entertainment programs, talk shows, or livestreams for the purpose of recommending or proving the product, this constitutes advertising endorsement behavior.”

Therefore, for pet industry advertisers and endorsing celebrities alike, it should be clearly recognized that, except for the situation where a celebrity “sells for themselves,” most common celebrity livestream sales activities will constitute endorsement behavior.

VI. If the Endorsed Pet Brand “Fails,” What Legal Liability Should the Celebrity Bear?

In recent years, the phenomenon of brands “failing” after celebrities collect high endorsement fees has occurred frequently. In the pet industry, there have also been incidents of “toxic cat food.” If the pet brand endorsed by a celebrity “fails” and causes consumer harm, what legal liability should the celebrity bear? The author provides the following analysis:

Administrative Liability

Heavy Fines

If a celebrity knows or should know that an advertisement is false but still endorses it, or makes recommendations or proofs for goods or services they have not used, the market supervision authority will, in accordance with the Advertising Law, confiscate their illegal gains and impose a fine of one to two times the illegal gains. This means that under such penalties, the endorsing celebrity will not only lose the endorsement fee but also have to pay an additional one to two times that amount.

Three-Year “Ban on Speaking”

Furthermore, according to Article 38 of the Advertising Law: “If a natural person, legal person, or other organization that has made recommendations or proofs in false advertisements and has received administrative penalties within the past three years, they shall not be used as an advertising endorser.” Celebrities who have been administratively penalized for endorsing false advertisements are prohibited from undertaking any advertising endorsements within three years after the penalty.

Civil Liability

No-Fault Liability

If a celebrity endorses a false advertisement concerning “goods or services related to life and health” and causes consumer harm, because it directly affects the life and health of consumers, the celebrity shall bear joint and several liability with the advertiser regardless of fault, in accordance with Article 56 of the Advertising Law.

Fault-Based Liability

For false advertisements concerning “other goods and services,” the harm to consumers is comparatively less severe than that related to life and health. Liability requires proof that the celebrity was at fault—i.e., that they knew or should have known the advertisement was false but still made recommendations or proofs. In such cases, the celebrity bears joint and several liability with the advertiser.

A special issue that requires discussion is: If the pet food endorsed by a celebrity “fails” and causes harm to a pet’s life or health, should the celebrity bear the aforementioned no-fault liability, or fault-based liability?

In this regard, the author believes that although pets are living beings that carry the emotional attachment and feelings of their owners, they essentially remain within the category of “property.” Under current Chinese law, pets are considered citizens’ property. In judicial practice concerning pet-related disputes, the assessment is primarily based on the monetary value of the pet. For example, in the case of Zhang v. Song regarding a motor vehicle traffic accident liability dispute [Case No.: (2017) Qian 0302 Min Chu No. 7926], Song’s vehicle injured Zhang’s pet dog. The court ultimately held: “Although a dog is a living animal, in the legal sense, it is a civil right object with non-personality, belonging to the dog owner’s property. The compensation scope for Zhang’s property loss should not exceed the value of the pet dog.” Therefore, based on the property nature of pets, harm caused by a celebrity’s endorsement of pet food “failing” results in damage to the pet’s life or health, not to the consumer’s life or health. Thus, only when the celebrity is at fault—knowing or should have known that the advertisement was false—should they bear joint and several liability with the advertiser.

VII. Compliance Recommendations for Celebrity Endorsement Activities in the Pet Industry

Recommendations for Pet Industry Advertisers

1. Conduct Background Checks on Endorsing Celebrities

Verify whether the celebrity has ever been administratively penalized for false endorsements, whether they are still within the three-year ban period, whether they are genuinely pet enthusiasts, and whether there are lawsuits or negative public opinions that could affect the pet brand’s image. Based on this, select a suitable celebrity for pet brand endorsement.

2. Implement Dynamic Risk Control for Pet Food Endorsements

Before initiating endorsement cooperation, consult with the local market supervision authority where the pet food enterprise is located to understand the regulatory enforcement standards. After starting the cooperation, conduct regular reviews of the advertising content, emphasizing the celebrity’s image endorsement and avoiding recommendations or proofs in the capacity of a user.

3. Standardize Endorsement Formats

Avoid “prohibited endorsement areas.” If the pet product or service intended for celebrity endorsement falls within the scope legally prohibited for endorsement, do not harbor any侥幸心理 by resorting to methods such as “joining the company” or serving as “experience officer” for “disguised endorsements.”

4. Comply with Platform Rules for Reporting

When collaborating with a celebrity for endorsement, if the publication medium involves platforms like Xiaohongshu, ensure proper advertising labeling and reporting in accordance with platform rules. This avoids wasting substantial endorsement fees due to penalties for non-compliance.

5. Improve Endorsement Contracts

Clearly define the rights, obligations, and liabilities of each party. In particular, stipulate that if the endorsing celebrity engages in “pet abuse,” “pet-hating remarks,” “eating cats or dogs,” or conceals such prior conduct—which is unsuitable for pet brand endorsement—the advertiser retains the right to terminate the endorsement contract and pursue relevant liabilities.

Recommendations for Celebrities Endorsing Pet Brands

1. Fulfill Obligations to Examine the Endorsed Brand

Before accepting a pet brand endorsement, the celebrity should conduct thorough background checks on the brand and request relevant documents from the advertiser to preserve evidence of having performed reasonable review obligations. For example, before endorsing pet food, the celebrity should require the advertiser to provide business licenses, feed production licenses, product quality inspection certificates, and other qualification documents.

2. Retain Evidence of Use

Still using pet food endorsement as an example, the celebrity should use the pet food at reasonable intervals and frequencies, keep truthful records of the pet’s performance after consumption (including any adverse reactions), and retain relevant supporting materials.

3. Conduct Appropriate Review of Advertising Content

In “grass-planting” and livestream sales activities, the celebrity should conduct basic advertising compliance reviews of the materials provided by the advertiser, avoiding “mindless recitation.” In the endorsement contract, it should be agreed that any legal liability arising from content provided by the advertiser shall actually be borne by the advertiser, and the endorser retains the right to claim compensation for losses. Additionally, for claims made in the advertising copy regarding “new products,” “formula upgrades,” “product upgrades,” and other claims about ingredients, functions, or characteristics, the celebrity should reasonably review them and retain relevant supporting materials (such as formula compositions, test reports, etc.).

4. Improve Endorsement Contracts

Detail various rights and obligations and clarify responsibilities. For example, explicitly stipulate the allocation of liability between the celebrity endorser and the advertiser in the event of quality issues with the endorsed product/service or other violations of consumer rights.