315 Exposes Extracellular Vesicle Scandal: 60,000 Yuan Leaves Face Ruined, Unlicensed "Miracle Drug" Operator Is A-Share Director

【Text by Wang Li, Edited by Zhou Yuanfang】

Every year around March 15th, the cosmetic medicine industry typically faces a routine exposure, but this year’s crackdown was more intense than many industry insiders expected.

On the evening of March 15th, CCTV’s annual Consumer Rights Evening focused on the rapidly expanding “exosome” track in the light medical aesthetics market over the past two years. The issues presented in the program are not just about chaos in production, distribution, sales, and injections, but reveal a complete gray industry chain that has been operating for years in regulatory gaps. For example, some companies produce exosome products using collagen permits, others evade drug and medical device regulations under the guise of “technical services,” and unlicensed institutions perform injections through “borrowing platforms.”

Exosomes are originally a frontier topic in cell biology research. These biologically active vesicles secreted during stem cell cultivation have been viewed by some researchers as potential tools for regenerative medicine in recent years, but their mechanisms remain scientifically inconclusive, and related clinical trials are still immature. Nevertheless, a commercial market centered on “anti-aging” and “rejuvenation,” with prices often reaching tens of thousands of yuan, has quietly formed in regulatory vacuum.

The six companies named in the 315 expose include Tianjin Chengxing Medical Beauty Clinic Co., Ltd., Tianjin Hedong Meilai Medical Beauty Hospital Co., Ltd., Haolin (Tianjin) Biotechnology Co., Ltd., Hunan Lisei Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Jebosaer Biotechnology Co., Ltd., and Zhengzhou Yuanchuang Gene Technology Co., Ltd. In fact, according to public data, there are over 180,000 medical aesthetic-related companies in China, with more than 2% having records of administrative penalties and a similar proportion involved in legal disputes. Behind these figures lies the industry’s long-standing tension across qualification, product, and operational lines.

“Borrowing platforms and fake certificates”: How does the gray chain form in regulatory gaps?

The entry path of exosomes into the medical aesthetics market illustrates the logic behind this industry’s gray areas.

Scientifically, exosomes are extracellular vesicles naturally secreted during stem cell cultivation, classified as biologically active substances. However, in the medical and academic fields, their mechanisms and clinical testing are still unclear, remaining largely in theoretical research. On the regulatory side, the National Medical Products Administration’s Center for Drug Evaluation only issued a draft opinion in June 2025 to include exosomes under drug regulation. As of now, no exosome drugs have been approved for sale in China.

In other words, from scientific maturity to regulatory coverage, exosomes have been in a “two-heads-in-the-air” state for a long time: lacking sufficient clinical evidence to support commercial use and not explicitly included in the existing drug and medical device approval system. This regulatory vacuum provides some companies with operational space.

The two illegal paths recorded by the 315 evening reveal how this gap is systematically exploited. The first involves production. Haolin (Tianjin) Biotechnology staff told investigators that their “Qingcheng” product mainly contains exosomes, but the company used a collagen production license to evade market regulation. License misuse is not an isolated case; it is essentially a practice of “hanging” different product categories on existing approvals, which is somewhat common in the medical aesthetics industry. Collagen, as an approved cosmetic raw material, has clear licensing standards, whereas exosomes, as a newer ingredient, should not rely on such licenses for market entry.

The second path is even more direct. In a city in southwestern China, Jebosaer Biotechnology Co., Ltd. displayed to reporters a so-called “medical-grade exosome frozen raw solution,” which lacked any product information on its packaging—truly a “three-no” product (no name, no ingredients, no approval). The company disguised it as “technical service” and sold it, completing injections through cooperation with medical institutions and “borrowing platforms” to bypass their own lack of medical qualifications.

It is noteworthy that Yuanchuang Gene, the company named in the exposure, has a more complex corporate structure than typical medical aesthetic suppliers. According to Qichacha, the largest shareholder Zhao Hui directly holds about 60.36% of shares and indirectly owns 22.52% through Rui Ji (Shenzhen) Investment Consulting Partnership (Limited Partnership), controlling a total of 82.88%. Zhao Hui’s role as a board member of Berry Genomics extends the issue from simple industry regulation to concerns about information disclosure and related risks.

The emergence of the industry term “borrowing platforms and fake certificates” itself reflects loopholes in compliance mechanisms. Essentially, it separates production from injection—producers act as “technical service providers,” while medical institutions provide venues and perform procedures, each avoiding legal risks. Consumers, unaware of the true situation, receive unregulated substances. Reports indicate that a treatment plan increasing “particle count” with three injections can cost up to 60,000 yuan.

Data shows that over 180,000 medical aesthetic companies exist in China, with Shandong, Guangdong, and Beijing leading—each with over 20,000, 19,000, and 11,000 companies respectively. The industry faces a significant gap: according to the China Association of Plastics and Aesthetics, about 17,000 practitioners are compliant, while illegal practitioners exceed 150,000. This supply-demand imbalance pressures the industry to fill personnel and product compliance gaps during rapid expansion.

Exosomes are not an isolated violation. Recent years have seen “new concept” products in the aesthetic market, from PDRN (polydeoxyribonucleotide) to various “regeneration needles,” sharing similar commercialization paths: scientific results are prematurely commercialized, entering the consumer market before full clinical validation, and rapidly expanding through marketing and packaging, often forming a de facto scale before regulation catches up. For regulators, this “fast market, slow regulation” strategy makes pre-market standards difficult and post-market rectification challenging.

Systemic issues in the medical aesthetics industry: false advertising, counterfeit goods, rogue doctors

The recent exposure of exosomes has refocused public attention on a deeper problem: is the industry’s issue one of individual companies’ moral failure or a systemic structural flaw?

Evidence suggests the latter.

False advertising is pervasive across the entire industry, not just in exosomes. China’s medical aesthetics market has long struggled with false claims, counterfeit products, illegal operations, and unregulated practices. A typical example is the genuine product rate in hyaluronic acid markets. Surveys show 65% of consumers worry about counterfeit injections, but only 35% are willing to pay over 10% more for genuine products. This paradox indicates that consumer trust in market integrity is low, yet they are unwilling to pay more for assurance—creating a market foundation for cheap fakes.

Violations in injectable products are especially prominent due to their unique commercial chain. Botulinum toxin and hyaluronic acid are Class III medical devices, with high regulatory thresholds. Legitimate products often take years to approve; however, demand is growing rapidly, creating opportunities for water- and fake goods to infiltrate. Statistics show that over 90% of equipment in illegal clinics are counterfeit or substandard. Although stricter regulation has reduced this proportion, the low genuine product rate remains a core trust barrier.

Beyond product quality, the chaotic licensing of practitioners is another systemic issue. iResearch estimates nearly 5,000 unqualified practitioners in legal clinics—often called “flying knife doctors”—who operate across multiple clinics without fixed locations, some lacking proper qualifications. This stems from supply-demand imbalance: training a qualified doctor takes 8-10 years, but the industry’s demand far exceeds this. As a result, some institutions fill gaps with unregulated personnel, prioritizing cost over safety.

Marketing problems also accumulate. Medical aesthetic consumption features significant information asymmetry: consumers lack professional judgment, relying heavily on promotional and consultation advice, which often conflicts with their right to informed choices. The rise of live-streaming e-commerce has amplified this issue—using low-price group buys, influencer endorsements, and limited-time offers to attract customers, often exaggerating effects and downplaying risks. The same logic applies to the exosome market: consumers see carefully edited “transformation cases” rather than immature clinical research results.

In response, regulators have strengthened efforts recently. In 2024, the National Health Commission and other departments launched a special campaign to rectify chaos in medical aesthetics, deregistering over 5,000 illegal institutions and increasing industry concentration. In January 2026, the China Association of Plastics and Aesthetics implemented the “Classification Management Measures for Medical Aesthetic Institutions (Trial),” using a scoring system with 366 indicators, requiring at least 950 points for the highest certification. These measures provide new regulatory tools, but their effectiveness remains to be seen.

The core regulatory challenge lies in the large number of industry entities versus limited regulatory resources. Over 180,000 companies exist, with about 1.91% having abnormal operation records, 2.12% having been penalized administratively, and 2.06% involved in legal proceedings. While these percentages seem low, the absolute numbers are significant, and the actual scope of violations may be even broader.

From an industry evolution perspective, the recent 315 exposure’s short-term impact on the exosome track is direct—search results for related products on major e-commerce platforms were immediately removed. However, whether this “campaign-style” cleanup can lead to lasting structural change remains uncertain, as history offers few optimistic precedents.

In the medical aesthetics market, each crackdown on a specific category is often followed by the emergence of new concepts to fill the void. This cycle reflects ongoing profit-driven behavior and the regulatory challenge of keeping pace with emerging technologies and ideas.