Recently, in Taizhou, Jiangsu Province, a consumer purchased a Zhou Dasheng gold ring only to find that the inner steel stamp read “Zhou Da Jin” instead of the branded Zhou Dasheng. The store claimed it was a “printing mistake” and only agreed to exchange the item but refused compensation. Online users questioned if it was a case of “counterfeiting.”
According to a report from mainland China’s “Yangzi Evening News,” Ms. Wu from Jiangsu bought a gold ring priced at 7300 yuan at a mall in Taizhou in February 2026. However, upon returning home, she discovered that the ring was too big. The next day, she went back to the store with her friend to exchange the ring. On the day of the exchange, her friend also purchased a ring.
On February 27th, when the store notified her husband to pick up the items, he found that the ring had no hangtag, the quality assurance certificate did not specify the weight, and the price was incorrect. The store explained that it was due to a rushed supply and that the boss had yet to properly label the items. On March 1st, the store reissued a quality assurance certificate for Ms. Wu and corrected the weight of the ring.
A few days later, Ms. Wu discovered that the inner stamp of the ring read “Zhou Da Jin.” After confirming with her friend, she found out that her friend’s ring also had the same erroneous stamp. The store explained that the rings were made of pure gold, assuring that they were not fake, but the steel stamp was incorrect. They offered to exchange the rings for ones with the correct “Zhou Dasheng” branding.
However, Ms. Wu believed that the store was leveraging the Zhou Dasheng brand to sell products from other sources. Even if they were made of pure gold, she argued that they could not be considered authentic products and demanded compensation based on the “punishment of three times the value for counterfeits.” The store firmly refused to comply with her request.
Ms. Wu then contacted the Zhou Dasheng headquarters, which responded by stating that “Zhou Dasheng” and “Zhou Da Jin” had no association. They suggested that the incident should be handled by the store involved. As of the time of reporting, there has been no further official response.
This incident has sparked public concerns about the labeling practices in the jewelry industry. Some netizens commented that many mainland Chinese brands, including Zhou Dasheng, Lao Xiang, and others, are primarily operated by franchisees who obtain products from manufacturing plants and label them with the brand names.
Others expressed skepticism about the authenticity of the products, stating that it would be challenging to enforce the rule of triple compensation for counterfeits. Genuine Hong Kong jewelry brands such as Chow Tai Fook, Chow Sang Sang, and Luk Fook were highlighted as the true veterans in the industry, as opposed to the mainland brands using similar combinations of characters for their names.
Some netizens voiced distrust towards jewelry stores and called for compensation to be provided to consumers. They emphasized that consumers were seeking Zhou Dasheng branded products but received items labeled Zhou Da Jin instead. They argued that even if the gold purity was acceptable, differences in brand value, craftsmanship standards, and after-sales service could still exist, potentially misleading consumers and compromising their rights to information.
Critics criticized the headquarters for distancing themselves from the issue and shifting responsibility solely to the individual stores, which tarnished the brand’s credibility. They insisted that the brand should be held accountable for the store’s actions and misleading practices. The situation was likened to a bait-and-switch tactic, and some demanded that penalties be imposed according to the rule of triple compensation for misleading consumers.
The comparison was made to the banking sector, where individual employees are often blamed for issues, deflecting responsibility from the institution itself.