Eliza Wong
On the evening of September 11th, the controversy surrounding Luo Yonghao’s criticism of Xibei’s use of pre-made dishes intensified. Jia Guolong (贾国龙), founder of Xibei, took a firm stance, explicitly stating that he would file a lawsuit against Luo Yonghao (罗永浩) in response to his negative comments. In the face of this legal threat, Luo Yonghao did not back down. Instead, he escalated the situation by publicly offering a 100,000 yuan bounty for what he called ‘real evidence’ that Xibei uses pre-made dishes. This move has transformed a war of words into a high-stakes battle for proof, putting the entire restaurant industry’s use of pre-made ingredients under a microscope. The public clash between a prominent entrepreneur and a major餐饮 chain has captivated social media and sparked a broader debate about transparency, quality, and value in China’s food service sector. The search for pre-made dishes evidence is now center stage. The Spark: Luo Yonghao’s Initial Criticism On September 10th, Luo Yonghao took to the Chinese microblogging platform Weibo to vent his frustration after a meal at Xibei, a well-known chain restaurant. He stated that he had not eaten there in a long time and was shocked to discover that ‘almost everything was pre-made dishes.’ His core complaint juxtaposed the high price of the meal with what he perceived as a low-quality, pre-prepared product, calling the experience ‘disgusting.’ This single post, from a figure with millions of followers, instantly went viral. Luo’s critique tapped into a growing consumer sentiment in China, where diners are becoming increasingly aware of and concerned about the use of pre-made or pre-packaged components in restaurants that market themselves as serving fresh, high-quality cuisine. The authenticity of a restaurant’s cooking process is now a major selling point. Defining Pre-Made Dishes in the Modern Kitchen The term ‘pre-made dishes’ can encompass a wide range of products, from pre-chopped vegetables and pre-marinated meats to fully cooked meals that only require reheating. Their use is widespread globally for reasons of efficiency, consistency, and cost-control. However, the controversy arises when restaurants do not transparently communicate their use to customers, especially when charging a premium price for what is marketed as ‘freshly made’ or ‘artisanal’ food. For many consumers, the value proposition is broken when a high-priced dish is simply reheated. Luo Yonghao’s comments struck a chord because they questioned this very value proposition at a popular and expensive chain. Xibei’s Counterattack: The Threat of Legal Action The response from Xibei and its founder, Jia Guolong, was swift and aggressive. Rather than issuing a standard public relations statement, Jia chose a confrontational path. On the evening of September 11th, he publicly announced his intention to sue Luo Yonghao for defamation. Jia argued that Luo’s claims had caused significant damage to Xibei’s brand reputation and its business operations. This legal threat was a clear attempt to shut down the narrative and assert control over it. By moving straight to litigation, Xibei signaled that it viewed Luo’s statements not as mere opinion but as factually incorrect and materially harmful. This strategy is high-risk; it raises the stakes for both parties and ensures the story will remain in the public eye for the duration of any legal proceedings. The High Stakes of Reputation in the Restaurant Industry In the competitive food and beverage sector, reputation is everything. A single viral scandal can lead to a sharp decline in customer trust and foot traffic. For a chain like Xibei, which has built its brand on a promise of quality and authenticity from China’s northwestern regions, an accusation of widespread pre-made dish usage is particularly damaging. Jia Guolong’s lawsuit threat is a defensive maneuver to protect the company’s most valuable asset: its name. He is betting that a strong, legalistic response will reassure customers and investors that the company stands firmly behind the quality of its food. Luo Yonghao’s Escalation: The 100,000 Yuan Bounty Unfazed by the lawsuit, Luo Yonghao doubled down. His response on social media was succinct: ‘好，来吧’ (‘Good, bring it on’). He followed this with a sarcastic jab, suggesting that if the dishes were truly made fresh, it would require ‘high technology’ for them to all taste like they had been reheated. Then, he made his most dramatic move: he offered a 100,000 yuan bounty (approximately $14,000 USD) for ‘真实证据’ or ‘real evidence’ that Xibei uses pre-made dishes. This tactic is brilliant in its crowd-sourcing approach. Instead of shouldering the entire burden of proof himself, Luo has effectively mobilized the public—including potentially disgruntled former employees, suppliers, or curious customers—to investigate on his behalf. The call for pre-made dishes evidence is now an open invitation, turning a personal critique into a public inquiry. A History of Provocative Public Campaigns This is not Luo Yonghao’s first foray into public stunts. A former English teacher, founder of smartphone company Smartisan, and now a highly successful live-streamer, Luo has built a career on being an outspoken and often contrarian figure. His willingness to engage in public feuds and his mastery of social media drama ensure that his actions generate massive attention. The bounty offer is consistent with his persona: it’s bold, direct, and designed to put maximum pressure on his adversary while generating free publicity for his own brand. The Broader Industry Context of Pre-Made Dishes The clash between Luo and Xibei is really a proxy for a much larger conversation happening within the Chinese餐饮 industry and among consumers. The use of pre-made dishes, or 预制菜 (yùzhì cài), has been expanding rapidly. The market is driven by the growth of chain restaurants, which prioritize standardization, and the booming delivery sector, which demands speed. According to a report by iiMedia Research, the market size for pre-made dishes in China reached 419.6 billion yuan in 2023 and is expected to exceed 600 billion yuan by 2026. For restaurant operators, the benefits are clear: reduced kitchen space needs, lower labor costs, minimized food waste, and consistent taste across all locations. However, the consumer reception is mixed. While some appreciate the convenience, others feel shortchanged, believing they are paying restaurant prices for what is essentially factory-produced food. The central issue is a lack of transparency. There is currently no regulation in China that强制requires restaurants to disclose their use of pre-made components. This ambiguity allows for marketing that emphasizes ‘freshness’ and ‘wok hei’ (the breath of the wok) while the reality in the kitchen may be different. Luo Yonghao’ bounty for pre-made dishes evidence highlights this transparency gap. Case Studies: The Global Perspective on Processed Foods This debate is not unique to China. In the United States, restaurants like Chili’s or Applebee’s openly rely on pre-prepared meals that are finished in-store. The controversy often arises with fast-casual chains like Sweetgreen or Cava, which market themselves on fresh, healthy ingredients but may use some pre-prepared elements. The key differentiator is often consumer expectation and branding. The current search for pre-made dishes evidence in China reflects a market that is still negotiating these expectations. Potential Outcomes and Implications The situation is now a standoff with several possible resolutions. First, the lawsuit may proceed. For Jia Guolong to succeed, he will need to prove that Luo’s statements were not only false but made with malicious intent, a high bar to clear given that ‘disgusting’ is largely subjective. The discovery process of a lawsuit could itself unearth internal Xibei documents that serve as the very pre-made dishes evidence Luo is seeking. Second, someone may come forward to claim the bounty. A whistleblower—perhaps a former kitchen employee with photos, videos, or invoices—could provide undeniable proof. This would be a public relations disaster for Xibei and validate Luo’s campaign. Third, the story may simply fade from public attention if no conclusive evidence emerges, though the damage to Xibei’s reputation may already be done. Regardless of the outcome, this incident has already had a profound impact. It has forced a public conversation about food integrity that many restaurants would prefer to avoid. It empowers consumers to ask more questions about what they are eating and what they are paying for. Other major restaurant chains will be watching closely and likely reviewing their own menus and communication strategies. The quest for pre-made dishes evidence has set a new precedent for consumer activism in the digital age. A Call for Greater Transparency The ultimate lesson from this feud may be the need for greater industry-wide transparency. Whether through voluntary disclosure or future regulation, consumers are demanding to know more about the origin and preparation of their food. Restaurants that are upfront about their use of pre-made components for certain dishes can manage customer expectations and avoid accusations of deception. Honesty, it turns out, might be the best policy to avoid becoming the target of the next public bounty hunt for pre-made dishes evidence. The dramatic offer of a 100,000 yuan reward for pre-made dishes evidence has ignited a firestorm that extends far beyond a simple disagreement between two business figures. It has become a referendum on value, authenticity, and transparency in modern dining. Luo Yonghao’s crowd-sourced investigation and Jia Guolong’s legal defense represent two contrasting approaches to managing a crisis in the era of social media. One thing is certain: consumers are now more aware than ever, and the restaurant industry will need to adapt to this new, more scrutinized reality. The next time you sit down for an expensive meal, you might just wonder about its journey to your plate. This incident proves that in today’s connected world, the truth is rarely ever just kept in the kitchen.
