With the full recovery of Hong Kong’s tourism industry after the pandemic, inbound visitors surpassed 23 million in the first half of this year alone. Pharmacies and medicine shops have once again become popular shopping destinations. However, the Consumer Council has received a significant number of complaints in recent months regarding unscrupulous sales practices at these traders. Reported issues include the purposeful ambiguity over pricing units from catty (斤) to tael (両), and from tael to mace (錢); promotion of imitation products with nearly identical packaging to confuse consumers; and mismatched receipt description and actual quantity purchased, which led to denied refund as the trader cited a point of sale (POS) system error. These malpractices not only damage the reputation of Hong Kong’s retail and tourism industries, but also undermine tourists’ confidence in shopping across the city. Despite the Council’s public reprimand of 4 Chinese pharmacies for sales malpractices in 2023, as well as multiple enforcement actions by the Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department (C&ED), reports of such incidents continue to occur from time to time.
The Council reminds operators of pharmacies and medicine shops that clear pricing information and unit of measurement for Chinese herbal medicine and dried seafood should be prominently displayed and explained to consumers before a transaction to minimise disputes. If a consumer specifies a preferred brand or product, traders should supply it accordingly and provide transparent details regarding its origin and price. Traders must also ensure that transaction details on receipts are accurate, as such documentation serves as decisive evidence in resolving consumer disputes. The Council strongly urges the industry to abandon misleading sales tactics, uphold integrity in business practices, and strengthen self-discipline so that through joint efforts, Hong Kong’s reputation as a shoppers’ paradise can be safeguarded.
Case 1: From “Tael” to “Mace”, Unclear Pricing Units Confused and Misled Tourists
The complainant and her family, visiting from Singapore, went to Medicine Shop A intending to purchase facial cleansers. However, the salesperson persistently promoted herbs such as milk thistle to them, and even offered a “buy 80 get 5 free” deal. The pricing unit of measurement was never mentioned throughout the sales process. The weight of herbs measured on the scale was displayed as 0.85. Claiming that the label displayed $380 per “tael”, the complainant estimated the total price to be around $300 and agreed to the purchase. Without further clarifying the actual pricing unit used and the total cost, the salesperson ground the herb into powder and requested the complainant to pay a total of $30,400. Startled by the unexpectedly exorbitant price, the complainant immediately questioned the amount, only to be told that the pricing unit was “mace” instead of “tael”. Purchasing 80 mace with an additional 5 mace free at $380 per mace, the total price hence amounted to $30,400. Although upset by the lack of prior explanation, the complainant did not wish to dispute the matter at the store as she was accompanied by 3 children, and chose to settle the payment first. The salesperson initially refused to issue a receipt, but eventually complied after the complainant insisted. Afterwards, the complainant suspected that the pricing unit on the receipt did not match that displayed in-store, added to the fact that the salesperson never mentioned it during the sale, thus she considered this a deliberate tactic of the trader to mislead consumers,. Consequently, she filed a complaint with the C&ED and sought help from the Council, requesting a refund.
Medicine Shop A responded that their price label clearly listed “mace” as the pricing unit, yet neither the store nor the complainant could provide any photos of the price label as proof. Initially, Medicine Shop A offered a 70% refund of $21,280, without requiring the return of the product, but the complainant declined. Following repeated conciliation by the Council, Medicine Shop A ultimately agreed to issue a full refund upon return of the product, thereby resolving the case.
Case 2: Suspected Imitation of “Angong Niuhuang Wan” Packaging Differing by Only a Character Undermined Consumer Confidence
The complainant, a Mainland tourist, visited Chinese Pharmacy B to enquire about the proprietary Chinese medicine “Angong Niuhuang Wan”. Although he had a preferred brand in mind, he did not specify it to the salesperson, who then recommended a product named “Beijing Angong Niuhuang Wan”. Since the product closely resembled his preferred brand in packaging and the salesperson claimed that it originated from Beijing, the complainant believed it to be his preferred brand and proceeded to purchase 3 boxes for approximately $2,640. After returning to the Mainland, the complainant closely examined the product and discovered that, despite the similar packaging and the labels of “Beijing” and “Angong Niuhuang Wan”, the manufacturer’s name differed by a single character from that of his preferred brand. Suspecting the product to be counterfeit or an imitation, he contacted the Council with his receipt to seek assistance for a return and refund.
In their response to the Council, Pharmacy B did not clarify whether the product was an imitation but agreed to issue a full refund. Following negotiation, the complainant travelled to Hong Kong 2 weeks later and visited the store in person to complete the refund process. He subsequently sent a letter to thank the Council for its assistance in resolving the matter.
Case 3: Quantity Shown on Receipt Did Not Match Actual Purchase
Trader Cited System Error and Refused to Refund the Price Difference
The complainant, a Mainland tourist, purchased a 6-vial box of “Huo Hsiang Cheng Chi Shui”, a Chinese herbal formula, along with other medicines at Medicine Shop C for a total of $305. After leaving Hong Kong, she noticed that the receipt indicated a 12-vial box priced at $170, rather than the 6-vial box she had received. Suspecting that Medicine Shop C had overcharged by double, she contacted them for clarification. Medicine Shop C explained that the bottle quantity on the receipt was misstated due to a POS system record error, but maintained that the price of $170 for a 6-vial box was correct and refused to issue a refund. The complainant then compared prices at other traders, and found that the typical retail price for the same 6-vial box ranged from $40 to $50. Convinced that Medicine Shop C had mistakenly charged her the price of a 12-vial box, she sought the Council’s assistance in obtaining a refund for the overcharged amount.
Medicine Shop C responded that the brand did not offer a 12-vial version and that their price for the 6-bottle box was indeed $170, attributing the receipt’s description to a POS system error. They also suggested that if the complainant returned to the store with the receipt, they could provide her with an additional 6-vial box. However, as the complainant had no plans to visit Hong Kong anytime soon, she asked for a refund of $85, which was half the price paid. Following further conciliation by the Council, Medicine Shop C agreed to her request and refunded the amount via an electronic payment platform, thereby settling the case.
The Council reminds consumers to pay attention to the following when shopping at pharmacies or medicine shops:
- Clearly inform the trader of your preferred brand or product, if any. If the brand has introduced anti-counterfeit features, carefully verify the product’s authenticity by comparison before paying;
- After completing the transaction, immediately check the receipt to ensure that the product name, quantity, and price are correct. When in doubt, promptly enquire with the trader. Retain receipts as future record of evidence;
- When purchasing Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) or dried seafood, it is advisable to first confirm the pricing unit of measurement and price with the trader, as well as the unit of measurement on the scale. Further verify the total cost after weighing. If there is any doubt, request to put the transaction on hold until all matters are clarified before agreeing to have the product sliced or ground;
- CHM should be purchased according to the prescription after consulting a registered Chinese medicine practitioner. Be cautious of any “diagnosis” made by non-registered personnel;
- All labels of registered proprietary Chinese medicines in Hong Kong display a registration number in the format of “HKC-XXXXX”, where “XXXXX” represents 5 digits. Check whether this number is present on the product packaging before purchase. Consumers can also consult the online “Lists of Applications for Proprietary Chinese Medicine Registration” issued by the Chinese Medicine Council of Hong Kong (https://www.cmchk.org.hk/pcm/eng/#main_listpcm_2023.htm). Note down the registration numbers, product names, and other details of the selected products for verification when making a purchase;
- Consumers are advised to patronise reputable traders. They may also look for the “No Fakes” pledge sticker displayed at the store entrance and check that the year indicated is current, as each sticker is valid for 1 year;
- If a dispute arises and negotiation with the trader fails, consumers may contact the Council for conciliation. If they suspect a trader of deceptive sales practices, such as using false or misleading trade descriptions, they may also seek assistance from the C&ED.
Download the article (Chinese only): https://ccchoice.org/587-complaints
Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE.