On the evening of January 16, a public spat between Xibei chairman Jia Guolong and internet opinion leader Luo Yonghao escalated into a showdown that has left the restaurant chain reeling and two prominent personal Weibo accounts silenced. Jia had announced a scheduled 10pm rebuttal to what he called “major slanders” by Luo; Luo replied that he had been misled by a copycat PR firm and signalled restraint. Within hours Jia’s long-form reply appeared on Xibei’s corporate account, accusing Luo of smearing government and judicial institutions and denying that Xibei had filed police complaints over the dispute.
Jia said he personally never pursued police action against Luo and that the only police report had been filed by his wife after the family was doxxed, including details about a young granddaughter. Media outlets then reported that both men’s personal Weibo accounts had been muted; the platform’s CEO, posting under the handle "laiquzhijian," suggested that heated exchanges are better conducted via media interviews in future. Shortly after Jia’s posts were removed from the corporate account, Luo posted in a WeChat circle, "Alright, he wins," adding that he could now "get back to work."
The confrontation comes amid a severe downturn in business for Xibei, a northwestern Chinese restaurant chain, which Jia confirmed will close 102 outlets—about 30% of the company’s network—during the first quarter. Jia said Xibei’s revenue has fallen 40–60% over the past four months, with January down roughly 50% year‑on‑year, and that the company had injected more than RMB 300 million in consumer vouchers to prop up sales. He warned the voucher campaign had worsened the firm’s financial position and framed the immediate corporate priority bluntly: "strive to survive."
Jia also sought to isolate Xibei from its past collaborators, saying the branding firm Huayuahua (华与华) and its founder Hua Shan had urged him not to respond publicly, but that the backlash was aimed squarely at him. The episode follows a "pre‑made dishes" controversy that dented consumer confidence in the chain and triggered the voucher programme and other emergency measures. Jia promised that employees forced to leave would be paid in full and that outstanding customer prepaid cards would remain valid at other outlets or be refunded on request.
This row highlights three overlapping dynamics reshaping Chinese corporate life: the amplified reputational power of outspoken influencers, the fragility of consumer confidence after food‑safety or product controversies, and the narrowing space for public argument on major social platforms. Luo’s charge that involved institutions—government and judiciary—raises the political sensitivity of the dispute and helps explain the rapid intervention by Weibo, whose moderation choices now carry obvious commercial consequences.
For other consumer brands the episode is a cautionary tale. Large voucher giveaways can temporarily lift footfall but also burn cash and obscure underlying demand problems; public feuds with high‑profile figures risk prolonging a downturn by keeping a story in circulation. For regulators and platforms the case presents a trade‑off between allowing public debate and limiting disputes that could cascade into broader social or political disruption. Xibei’s declared focus on cash preservation, store consolidation and employee protections will determine whether this is a painful correction or the start of a long contraction for a once‑fast‑growing chain.