Many visitors to Hong Kong like to purchase medicines, medicinal oils and herbal medicine for personal use or as gifts. At the same time, with an ageing population and growing health consciousness, health supplements have become increasingly popular. The Consumer Council has in the past repeatedly urged unscrupulous traders to abandon misleading sales practices in order to enhance consumer confidence, yet in recent years, complaints relating to sales practices still account for about 25% of complaints in the “drugs, medicines and supplements” category. These include suspected mistaken purchase of imitation products with highly similar packaging, and confusion over pricing units. In addition, the Council regularly receives complaints involving shortfalls in product quantity, quality disputes, stock shortage and delayed refunds, all of which warrant attention.
The Council urges the medicine and supplement industry to conduct business with integrity, clearly display prices and pricing units, and proactively provide consumers with accurate and comprehensive product information before purchase. Where products are out of stock, or where exchanges or refunds are required, traders should promptly notify consumers and handle matters to help minimise disputes.
CHOICE Magazine issue 598 highlights several complaint cases relating to unscrupulous sales practices involving drugs, medicines and supplements, as well as a case handled by the Customs and Excise Department (C&ED) involving the “catty-to-tael” malpractice, which serves to remind traders to strictly comply with relevant legislation and jointly safeguard Hong Kong’s reputation as a “shopping paradise”. The Council will also continue to work closely with the C&ED to combat unfair trade practices and protect consumer rights.
Case 1: Requested Medicine Replaced by Suspected Imitation Product, Raising Questions Over Medicine Shop Sales Practices
While visiting Hong Kong, the complainant purchased several medicinal oils and medicines from Medicine Shop A. During the purchase, he clearly specified the required brands with the staff. The staff presented several medicinal oils and medicines from a cabinet, and the complainant paid around $250 for the products. When inspecting the products after returning to the Mainland, however, the complainant found that 1 medicine appeared to be different from the requested brand. Though the packaging colour and English product name of the purchased item were highly similar to those of the desired brand, careful comparison revealed differences. For example, the intended brand’s packaging should have 2 winged angels, whereas the purchased product featured a pair of birds. The English names of the 2 products also differed by 2 letters. Furthermore, another medicinal oil purchased was less than 6 months from its expiry date, rather than the usual shelf life of up to 3 years. Suspecting that the products purchased were not the authentic items of his requested brand and having concerns about their safety and quality, the complainant did not dare use them. Believing that Medicine Shop A had deliberately confused consumers with an imitation product, the complainant lodged a complaint with the Council and requested a return and refund.
After receiving the referral from the Council, Medicine Shop A proactively indicated its willingness to arrange a return and refund and followed up directly with the complainant through an instant messaging application. After conciliation, Medicine Shop A agreed to provide a full refund, and the case was resolved.
Case 2: Supplement Labelled as Containing 90 Capsules per Bottle yet Shortfall Discovered After Counting
While attending the Hong Kong Brands and Products Expo, the complainant, a visitor from Macau, purchased 35 bottles of a health supplement which claimed to support bone and joint health from Company B, paying approximately $12,500. Together with 5 complimentary bottles provided by the trader, the complainant received a total of 40 bottles.
According to the label, each bottle contained 90 capsules, with a recommended dosage of 3 capsules per serving, twice daily. Based on the recommended intake, a bottle should last 15 days. However, after following the recommended dosage for some time, the complainant and his spouse noticed on several occasions that only 2 capsules remained at the end of a bottle, suggesting a possible discrepancy with the labelled quantity. They subsequently counted the capsules in newly opened bottles and found that 1 bottle contained only 89 capsules, while another contained only 88 capsules. The complainant thus contacted Company B and requested replacement of the missing quantity.
Company B stated that a replacement could be arranged, but the unopened products would have to be brought back to Hong Kong for processing. As the complainant still had 28 unopened bottles, all packaged in glass containers, and given the complainant’s advanced age, travelling to Hong Kong with a large quantity of products was considered impractical. As the parties could not reach agreement, the complainant sought assistance from the Council in the hope of securing a more flexible arrangement.
In its reply to the Council, Company B stated that after learning that the complainant resided in Macau, it was willing to arrange replacement in Macau to spare the complainant the inconvenience of transporting the products back to Hong Kong. The complainant subsequently contacted Company B directly and finalised the replacement arrangement. The complainant also wrote to the Council confirming completion of the replacement and expressing appreciation for the Council’s assistance. The case was resolved.
Case 3: Online Medicine Order Delayed Due to Stock Shortage
Refund Delayed for Over a Month
In late February, the complainant ordered medicines through Company C’s online store. As the website indicated that delivery could normally be completed within 2 working days, the complainant expected that the order could arrive before she departed for a trip in 4 working days.
However, 3 days after placing the order, Company C notified the complainant via text message that delivery of some products would be delayed by 3 to 5 working days. Upon enquiry with customer service, the complainant was informed that the products concerned were out of stock and additional time was needed to replenish inventory. As the medicines could no longer arrive before her departure, the complainant decided to purchase the required medicine elsewhere. Customer service subsequently confirmed via instant messaging that the order would be cancelled and that the refund would be processed within 1 to 2 weeks.
After waiting 2 weeks without receiving the refund, the complainant made repeated enquiries but was only told that the actual crediting date depended on banking arrangements. By the end of March, the refund had still not been received, exceeding the originally promised processing timeframe. The complainant therefore sought assistance from the Council.
Company C replied that delays were due to increased demand for warehouse allocation and logistics services, together with shortages affecting some of the products ordered. As no definite replenishment date could be confirmed, the company agreed to cancel the order and issue a refund to avoid prolonged waiting by the customer. Company C later advised that the refund had been completed in mid-April. Through the Council, it also apologised to the complainant for the inconvenience caused and stated that it would review its service arrangements and order processing procedures to enhance service quality.
Case 4 (C&ED Case): Pricing Unit Concealed Until Ground into Powder
“Catty-to-Mace” Tactic Resulted in Final Bill 160 Times Higher Than Expected
When shopping for proprietary Chinese medicine from Medicine Shop D during his visit to Hong Kong, the complainant was peddled a type of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) known as Ribbed Hedyotis by the staff. The complainant noticed a price tag stating “$280”, but was unable to clearly read the pricing unit because the remaining information was displayed in smaller print. He asked whether the price was calculated per catty, but the staff member did not provide a direct answer. The complainant therefore assumed that the CHM was priced per catty and estimated that half a catty would cost approximately $140. Based on that understanding, he agreed to make the purchase.
After weighing the herb, the salesperson neither explained the pricing unit nor disclosed the total amount payable before handing it to another staff member for grinding into powder. Only after the product had been processed into powder did the salesperson demand payment of $22,400. When the complainant questioned the amount, the staff member explained that the actual pricing unit was “mace”, resulting in a final price 160 times higher than originally expected. The complainant refused to complete the purchase. However, as the CHM had already been ground into powder, the complainant eventually purchased nearly half of it for $11,000 after negotiation. Dissatisfied that the pricing unit and total price had not been clearly disclosed during the sales process and believing the practice to be misleading, the complainant lodged a complaint with the C&ED.
Following an investigation, the C&ED found that the staff members had deliberately concealed, or provided at an inappropriate time, material information such as the pricing unit and total transaction amount during the sales process. The conduct involved the unfair trade practices commonly known as “catty-to-tael” and “tael-to-mace”. 2 staff members were arrested. After seeking legal advice from the Department of Justice, the department prosecuted 1 staff member responsible for promoting the product to the complainant for engaging in a commercial practice involving a misleading omission under the Trade Descriptions Ordinance. Following trial, the staff member was convicted and sentenced to 120 hours of community service and ordered to pay compensation of $11,000 to the complainant.
Recommendations for medicine shops and the health supplement trade to enhance service quality and consumer confidence:
- Clearly disclose important information including the names of CHM, pricing units, medicine or supplement brands, functions, prices and total transaction amounts, and explain such information in detail before transactions and payment are completed, enabling consumers to make informed purchasing decisions;
- Where consumers have specified a preferred brand or product, traders should supply the products requested. If the products are unavailable, this should be explained truthfully so that consumers can decide whether to purchase alternatives;
- Proactively issue official receipts after transactions, clearly stating product names, quantities, transaction dates and amounts, in order to safeguard the interests of both the buyer and seller;
- Establish clear after-sales service arrangements, including return and exchange mechanisms and follow-up procedures, and respond to consumer enquiries in a timely manner to reduce misunderstanding and enhance the overall consumer experience.
Advice for consumers when purchasing medicines, herbal medicine and health supplements:
- Clearly specify the preferred brand or product, pay attention to any anti-counterfeiting features of the brand concerned, and carefully verify that the products supplied by the trader are correct before paying;
- When purchasing CHM, dried seafood or ginseng products, pay particular attention to whether prices are quoted by catty, tael or mace. Before fully confirming and agreeing to the final amount payable, consumers should not allow traders to slice, grind or otherwise process the CHM, so as to avoid disputes;
- Request an official invoice or receipt stating the product name, quantity, pricing unit and total amount after purchase, and retain it properly as important evidence should a consumer dispute subsequently arise. If problems with the product are identified, consumers should take photographs as evidence, report the matter to the trader as soon as possible, and retain complete communication records. If negotiations fail, assistance may be sought from the Consumer Council;
- Do not readily believe unreasonable promotional offers, such as verbal promises of “buy 1 get 1 free” or “buy now, pay nothing”. If unfair trade practices are suspected, including misleading omissions, false trade descriptions or aggressive commercial practices, consumers should remain calm and immediately report the matter via the C&ED’s 24-hour hotline (182 8080).
Download the article (Chinese only): https://ccchoice.org/598-medicine
Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE.