Luo Yonghao vs. Xibei: Celebrity Entrepreneur Sparks Media Storm Over Pre‑Made Dishes and Calls for Transparency

Jia Guolong, the founder and chairman of Xibei Catering Group, responded not with a quiet clarification but with an abrasive retort that would inflame the controversy further. In an internal industry messaging group he labeled Luo a “network black mouth” (网络黑嘴) and a “network mafia” (网络黑社会), terms that translate roughly as “cyber gangster” or “digital mafioso.” The incendiary language was captured by the Chinese press and spread across social media platforms, prompting an outpouring of criticism aimed at Jia’s handling of the dispute.

The disagreement unfolded against a backdrop of mounting suspicion about Xibei’s kitchen practices. On September 12, Zhejiang‑based outlet China Blue News staged a live “raid” on a Xibei restaurant in Hangzhou. Reporters found a litany of frozen, long‑shelf‑life ingredients – stewed pork stored in freezers for later reheating, sea‑bass packaged as “quick‑frozen conditioned food” with an 18‑month expiry, and lamb chops with extended “best before” dates. Chefs were observed heating these items on induction cookers rather than preparing dishes from scratch, and a children’s‑meal sauce that required only a brief stir‑fry was traced back to pre‑processed packets. The investigation suggested that, despite Xibei’s claim that its central kitchen supplies “semi‑finished products” in line with a 2024 national guideline, the reality on the floor resembled the pre‑made model Luo had denounced.

Xibei’s first public response came in the form of a letter to customers, which was deleted merely half an hour after posting – a move that only intensified public suspicion. In the same week the chain introduced a “Lao Luo Set Menu” as a marketing ploy, a decision that many observers found tone‑deaf given the ongoing feud. When a Xibei chef tried to explain that “overnight dishes” were merely “pre‑processing” rather than “pre‑made,” netizens mocked the semantics as a classic case of “word games.”

Luo Yonghao, far from backing down, turned the controversy into a campaign. He offered a 100,000‑yuan (roughly US $14,000) reward for anyone who could provide evidence of Xibei’s pre‑made dishes. Within days, consumers began posting photos of “bagged frozen beef‑stew rice packs” with nine‑month shelf lives that were being served as fresh meals. Luo’s livestreames, which routinely draw millions of viewers, featured him laying out a series of actions: he pledged to pay the Xibei employee who had let reporters into the kitchen, invited journalists to join his own investigation, threatened to sue the chain for falsely advertising a “Luo Yonghao menu,” and announced plans to file a class‑action suit against Xibei for misleading customers about the nature of its food. He also declared that he would pursue legal action against Jia Guolong for the “network mafia” slur, warning that anyone trying to mediate would be “cut off” from the conversation.

Social media reaction has been overwhelmingly sympathetic to Luo and sharply critical of Jia. Commentators have accused the Xibei founder of “crisis public relations without opportunity, only crisis,” and of living in a “bubble” detached from consumer concerns. The episode has revived broader debates about transparency in China’s restaurant industry, with more than 80 % of surveyed netizens now supporting mandatory labeling of pre‑made ingredients. Analysts warn that the saga could jeopardise Xibei’s plans to go public in 2026, and some investors have hinted at potential penalties if the chain fails to meet the heightened expectations of a market that now scrutinises food quality as closely as financial performance.

As the dispute continues, Luo Yonghao’s “Siemens treatment” – a reference to his past strategy of sustained, aggressive campaigns – suggests that the battle is far from over. Whether the controversy will lead to stricter regulations on pre‑made dishes, reshape consumer expectations, or simply become another chapter in the ongoing tussle between China’s celebrity entrepreneurs and entrenched business interests remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that a single complaint on a social platform has escalated into a high‑stakes showdown, exposing the fragility of brand reputation in the digital age and reminding both firms and influencers that a few careless words can ignite a firestorm that engulfs an entire industry.