Why Should a Beauty Device That Costs Thousands of Yuan Claim to Have Anti-Aging Properties? – Unveiling the “Language Games” Behind AMIRO
Hello everyone, I’m your financial journalist and economist. Today, we’re not talking about stock market charts, but about those “high-tech” beauty devices on your vanity tables that can cost thousands or even tens of thousands of yuan.
During the recent Double Eleven shopping festival, various home-use beauty devices were once again the targets of promotional campaigns. Terms like radiofrequency, red light, and microcurrent were hyped up as miracle tools for “at-home cosmetic treatments” and “reversing aging.” But as consumers, what are we really getting for our hard-earned money? Real results, or just a carefully crafted set of marketing slogans?
Today, we’ll take the leading brand in the industry, AMIRO, as an example to peel back the layers of these “technological skincare” claims and uncover the secrets hidden in the fine print.
---
Key Points Summary
The main argument of this article is quite straightforward: Home-use beauty devices are facing a crisis of “regulatory arbitrage” and a mismatch between claims and actual evidence.
In simple terms, technology has advanced, but regulations have not kept up, while marketing has moved much faster than necessary:
1. Regulatory Vacuum: The once-popular radiofrequency beauty devices have now been classified as Class 3 medical devices, requiring extremely high standards. As a result, manufacturers have shifted to technologies like LED light therapy, microcurrent, and ultrasound, which are currently regulated as ordinary household appliances and do not need to provide the same rigorous clinical efficacy proofs as medical devices.
2. Break in the Evidence Chain: Brands claim to promote collagen production and anti-aging effects, but the evidence they provide often consists of cellular experiment data (tested in petri dishes) or citations from old studies (conducted by others, not necessarily applicable to their products).
3. Conclusion: Many current home-use beauty devices are essentially just “safe household appliances” and not effective substitutes for medical treatments. Claims like “98% collagen regeneration” are significantly exaggerated and misleading, highlighting a large gap between scientific evidence and marketing rhetoric.
---
In-Depth Analysis: Five Dimensions to Understand the “Tricks” Used by Beauty Devices
To help you understand this better, I’ve broken down the investigation into five key aspects, explained in plain language:
1. The “Cat-and-Mouse Game” of Regulation: Radiofrequency Falls Out, Other Technologies Step In
【Easy Explanation】
It’s like getting a driver’s license in the past. Getting a C1 (radiofrequency) license was very difficult and required multiple tests. Now, the rules have changed, and C1 has become like a “special vehicle license” with very high requirements; you can’t drive without it. So, many manufacturers have switched to easier-to-obtain licenses for technologies like LED, microcurrent, and ultrasound, where the focus is on safety (the device not harming people), not on effectiveness.
**【Detailed Analysis】:
- Background Change: Since April 2026, radiofrequency beauty devices have been classified as Class 3 medical devices, meaning manufacturers must provide comprehensive safety and efficacy data to sell them legally.
- Industry Response: To avoid these high standards, manufacturers have adjusted their product lines to focus on LED, microcurrent, and ultrasound, which are generally treated as ordinary consumer electronics.
- Regulatory Difference: The focus for ordinary household appliances is on safety, not on proving the efficacy of claimed anti-aging or firming effects.
- Result: This has led to a situation where the technology has changed, but the marketing for anti-aging effects remains the same. Manufacturers exploit the lax regulation on non-medical claims to sell what are essentially ordinary appliances as if they were medical treatments.
2. “Cellular Experiments” Don’t Equal “Human Face Experiments”: Where Does the Claim of 98% Collagen Regeneration Come From?
【Easy Explanation】
It’s like eating a new vegetable and finding in a lab that a component in it makes mice’ muscle cells grow faster. The advertisement then claims, “Eat this vegetable, and your muscle mass increases by 98%!”
Is this credible? No. Just because mice’ cells grow doesn’t mean it will happen to humans, and even if it does, it doesn’t mean you’ll look stronger. There are many factors in between, such as digestion, metabolism, and individual differences.
**【Detailed Analysis】:
- Example: AMIRO’s ultrasound egg claims “98% collagen regeneration after 4 days of use.”
- Truth: This data comes from a Huace Collagen Regeneration Cell Experiment Report. Note the key word: cellular experiment.
- Scientific Logic Gap:
1. Different Metrics: The report measures the relative expression of collagen-related mRNA, which is like giving instructions to cells to produce collagen. More instructions doesn’t mean more collagen is actually produced, and it doesn’t mean it’s absorbed by the skin.
2. Different Subjects: The experiment was done on cells in a petri dish, not on human skin, which is complex and dynamic.
3. Conclusion: There’s a lack of a complete evidence chain from cell-level changes to actual skin changes. This is a typical case of in vitro data being misused to claim in vivo effects, which is unscientific and misleading in marketing.
3. “Using Others’ Papers to Prove Your Own Product?”
【Easy Explanation】
It’s like a new hot pot restaurant claiming its food can cure a cold. The owner pulls out a book and says, “It says eating chili can induce sweating and dispel cold, so our chili hot pot can cure a cold.”
Is that reasonable? Not at all. The book’s conclusions apply to chili in general, not to a specific hot pot recipe.
【Detailed Analysis:
- Example: AMIRO’s eye mask claims “improved darkness, wrinkles, and sagging after 3 minutes of light therapy.”
- Truth: The efficacy is based on historical research literature.
- Logical flaw:
1. Misapplication of Research: The literature studies the effect of specific wavelengths on specific subjects. AMIRO’s device may use similar wavelengths, but the parameters (light source distribution, intensity, dose, etc.) could be different.
2. Lack of Independent Proof: Citing others’ papers only proves the theoretical potential of the technology, not the effectiveness of AMIRO’s product.
3. Scientific Rigor: The effectiveness of light therapy depends on multiple factors, not just the wavelength. Claiming efficacy based on similar wavelengths is a misrepresentation.
4. “Selective Disclosure”: Some Efficacy Is Tested, Others Are Not
【Easy Explanation】
It’s like a student who gets 100 in math and 60 in Chinese and claims, “I got full marks in math and am excellent in Chinese.”
In reality, they only passed Chinese, but they avoid mentioning the specific score and emphasize the “excellence.”
【Detailed Analysis:
- Example: AMIRO’s facial mask claims multiple effects from five types of light.
- Truth: For some effects (acne reduction, oil control, dark spots, metabolism, collagen regeneration), the brand provides third-party data or cellular experiments. For the core, most expensive claim (collagen regeneration), there’s no experimental evidence.
- Manipulation: The brand combines proven effects with unproven ones to make it seem like all effects are verified.
5. Marketing That Overskips Steps: Science at Step 3, Advertising at Step 10
【Easy Explanation】
Scientific research progresses step by step:
- Step 1: Discovering potential in a technology.
- Step 2: Testing its effectiveness in cells.
- Step 3: Observing some improvement in small-scale animal or human trials.
- ...
- Step 10: Large-scale clinical trials to confirm safety and effectiveness before approval.
Many current beauty device marketing claims to have reached Step 10 without going through all the steps.
【Detailed Analysis:
- Industry Problem: The biggest issue in the beauty device industry is the incomplete evidence chain.
- Literature ≠ Product Claims: Literature provides general knowledge, while product claims need specific evidence.
- Cellular Data ≠ Human Data: In vitro results cannot be directly applied to humans.
- Parameter Compliance ≠ Actual Effect: Meeting device parameters doesn’t guarantee the claimed effects.
- Consumer Dilemma: Consumers expect the certainty of medical treatments (with immediate results and clinical evidence), but home-use devices use a “technological” facade to mask uncertainty.
- Future Outlook: For home-use devices to move from being ordinary appliances to genuine skincare solutions, they need to provide a complete evidence chain. They must prove effectiveness, not just safety.
- Consumers should be cautious of products that rely on literature and only show cellular data without human efficacy tests.
---
Tips for Consumers (Key Points):
1. Read the Fine Print: Always check the small print on e-commerce pages. For claims like “98%” or “instant results,” look at the source of the data. Is it from human efficacy tests or cellular experiments? Are the results from the device itself or from cited literature?
2. Distinguish Between Safety and Effectiveness: Ordinary appliances ensure safety, not effectiveness. Don’t expect a device costing thousands to have the same results as expensive medical treatments.
3. Be Skeptical of Collagen Promotion: Collagen promotion is the hardest to prove. If a brand can’t provide human efficacy data, be skeptical.
4. Rationally Evaluate Technology: Technologies like LED and microcurrent have a scientific basis, but effects vary and often require consistent, proper use. Don’t overpromise.
In Summary:
Home-use beauty devices are not necessarily a waste of money, but many are a form of marketing. Until regulations improve, be cautious and carefully evaluate the evidence before making purchases. Don’t let clever marketing tactics empty your wallet.