A public spat between high‑profile streamer Luo Yonghao and the chairman of Chinese restaurant chain Xibei has spilled out of social media and into the balance sheets of a nationwide food business. Late on January 17, Xibei chairman Jia Guolong posted a forceful rebuttal on social media after weeks of accusations and counterclaims about whether dishes served in Xibei restaurants are ‘‘pre‑made’’. The exchange has coincided with a steep drop in customer traffic and the announced closure of more than 100 outlets.
The dispute began in September 2025 when Luo accused Xibei of serving pre‑made food—so‑called yufei cai—allegations Xibei has repeatedly denied. Jia points to a 2024 clarification by six Chinese ministries that chain restaurants operating central kitchens are not classified as ‘‘pre‑made’’ products and insists Xibei operates within the law. He also stresses that Xibei was among the pioneers of open kitchens, arguing customers can see food being prepared and therefore have adequate ‘‘right to know’’.
For Xibei, the commercial consequences have been immediate and severe. Jia has said customer traffic plunged ‘‘cliff‑like’’ and that revenue fell by 40–60 percent over four months, forcing the company to close 102 stores—roughly 30 percent of its network—and to deploy promotions that failed to restore confidence. Jia also claims the online controversy brought a surge in abuse and repeated citations of Luo’s lines across the internet, compounding the reputational damage.
Luo, for his part, confirmed that his Weibo account has been muted for 15 days and told friends he will not continue this public back‑and‑forth, expressing faith that clearer rules on pre‑made food transparency will be issued. He has framed the debate as part of a larger concern about industrialised convenience food supplanting professionally trained cooks, saying regulation should protect consumers rather than enable restaurants to pass off reheated industrial products as freshly made meals.
The episode highlights the disproportionate power of celebrity influencers in China’s digital ecosystem. Jia alleges that while Xibei’s sales plunged, Luo’s livestream shop saw sales increase fivefold during the controversy, and that revenues for Luo’s ‘‘Jiaoge Pengyou’’ (Make a Friend) livestream jumped to nearly twice the average of prior quarters. That juxtaposition—bruising a brand’s reputation while driving personal commerce from the fallout—has prompted questions about the ethics of public denunciations on commercial platforms.
Platform governance has also come under scrutiny. Both men’s accounts were muted, and Sina Weibo’s chief executive urged that future disputes be handled through media interviews rather than public online battles. The episode shows how platform moderation and state expectations intersect: Beijing has an interest in preventing online ‘‘chaos,’’ and platforms, wary of regulatory risk, are signaling tighter control over incendiary – and commercially consequential—argumentation.
Beyond reputations and moderation, the conflict exposes a policy gap. The definition and regulation of ‘‘pre‑made’’ food in China sits at the intersection of industrial policy, food safety, and labour economics. Officials have promoted development of the pre‑made food industry to improve food safety and supply chains, but the line between industrially prepared inputs and freshly cooked restaurant dishes remains contested. Clearer legal definitions and labelling requirements, as both parties expect, could help but will also reshape costs and operations for many chains.
For investors, employees and consumers the stakes are practical: job losses and closed stores are already material, and diminished consumer trust could hit full‑service dining broadly. Jia says he will rely on legal channels and organizational support to keep Xibei alive, pledging to ‘‘do everything possible’’ to restore the business and public trust. Luo, having been muted, has signalled he will step back and let regulatory changes do the talking.
The Xibei–Luo episode is thus more than a business feud; it is a case study in how influencer power, regulatory ambiguity and platform governance combine to inflict real economic harm. It underlines the fragile relationship between digital reputational dynamics and physical enterprises in China, and points to an imminent policy and commercial reckoning about how food is defined, labelled and debated in public.