A virtual influencer, who gained over 400,000 followers in just one month for her role in the AI short drama "The Laid-Off Girl," has sparked a major controversy after a 60-second advertisement with a price tag of 258,000 yuan backfired. In the video, the code-generated virtual character "Fang Taoci" promoted cosmetic contact lenses to the camera, claiming, "They felt comfortable all day long." The comment section immediately erupted with criticism, with one user pointing out, "You don't have eyes, so how can you have a wearing experience?"

After the controversy escalated, the advertisement was quickly removed from all platforms, and the local market regulatory authorities have launched an investigation into the involved brand. However, this incident is far from over, as it has brought to light a critical question: when an AI virtual persona uses a first-person narrative to fabricate a product experience, who bears the legal responsibility?

There are two major issues with this advertisement. First, cosmetic contact lenses are a type of decorative colored contact lens, not an ordinary beauty product. Due to their high risk, they are classified as Class III medical devices in China, a category that also includes implantable pacemakers, artificial joints, and vascular stents. Article 16 of China's Advertising Law explicitly states that advertisements for medical treatments, pharmaceuticals, and medical devices cannot use advertising endorsers for recommendations or testimonials. This means that no one, whether a top celebrity, an online influencer, or an ordinary person, is qualified to endorse or recommend these lenses. If real people are not allowed to endorse them, an AI virtual persona engaging in "cross-border product promotion" is a direct violation of regulatory boundaries.

Fang Taoci is not an isolated case. Previously, a Wuxi-based MCN company was found to have violated the law by publishing contact lens advertisements that included personal usage experiences without labeling them as "advertisements," resulting in penalties of over 190,000 yuan. Similarly, the popular virtual influencer "Ling Ling" faced widespread criticism when she promoted lipstick with personal experience claims like "moisturizing and non-drying," as netizens questioned how a virtual persona could truly experience beauty products while trying to sell them.

Second, an AI virtual persona does not have eyes and cannot physically wear contact lenses. The claim "they felt comfortable all day long" is essentially content generated by code masquerading as a real person's experience. According to Article 28, Paragraph 4 of the Advertising Law, fabricating the effects of using a product or receiving a service constitutes false advertising. Legal experts interpret that the authenticity of advertisements is an absolute bottom line, which does not differentiate between real people and virtual personas. Since an AI virtual persona has no genuine trial experience, its first-person claims of "comfortable all day" and "no shifting when blinking" lack any factual basis and constitute the fabrication of product effects, which is false advertising.

While an AI is not a "person" in the legal sense, someone must still be held responsible. It is important to clarify a legal principle: the "advertising endorser" defined in the Advertising Law refers to a natural person, legal person, or other organization, other than the advertiser, who recommends or testifies to a product or service in their own name or image. Since an AI virtual persona lacks civil subject status, it does not have the legal qualification to be an endorser. In other words, Fang Taoci does not even have the legal standing to be "penalized."

However, this does not mean no one is accountable. Ma Lihong, a senior partner at Beijing Deheheng Law Firm, stated in an interview that while an AI virtual persona is not a legal endorser due to its lack of independent civil subject status, advertisements using virtual personas are still subject to legal constraints. The Advertising Law clearly stipulates that advertisers bear primary responsibility for the truthfulness of advertising content. Additionally, the IP operation and production team behind Fang Taoci has a legal obligation to review content and ensure compliance when accepting commercial advertisements. The team, fully aware that Fang Taoci is an AI virtual persona that cannot genuinely try on contact lenses, still produced fake experience scripts and accepted a promotional partnership despite knowing that high-risk medical devices are prohibited from being endorsed, and therefore must bear joint and several legal liability.

So, what are the boundaries for virtual personas in product promotion? Industry insiders generally agree that the commercialization of virtual personas should distinguish capability boundaries, strictly adhere to category red lines, and fulfill content responsibilities. Zheng Huanzhao, deputy director of the Cultural Industry Development Research Institute at Jinan University, pointed out that while the commercialization of AI virtual personas is an industry trend, it cannot simply copy the operational model of real online influencers. This controversy surrounding Fang Taoci serves as a reminder that this trend comes with strong constraints. Virtual personas lack civil subject qualification and cannot assume the legal obligations of endorsers, so their role should be limited to brand image presentation, scene placement, and aesthetic display. Liang Zikang, CEO of Chuangyi Technology, the operator behind virtual influencer Liu Yexi, emphasized that the core advantage of virtual personas lies in standardized content output and brand image enhancement. He stressed that refraining from reviewing consumer products that require real human sensory experience is a fundamental principle that all virtual persona commercialization must adhere to.

Technology can replicate a lifelike consumer experience, but it cannot bypass the bottom line of laws and regulations in the real world.