An evolutionary game analysis of dual-model governance for false advertising in live e-commerce: multi-agent and complex network perspectives

Why online shoppers should care

Live shopping shows have turned clicking “buy” into a social event, but they have also opened the door for misleading claims about products. This article investigates why false advertising spreads in live e-commerce and how smarter rules, better oversight, and more aware viewers can help keep what you see on screen closer to what you get at home.

Two kinds of misleading claims

The authors first distinguish between two everyday forms of deception. In one, hosts repeat wrong claims because they themselves have been misled or lack the skills to check what they promote. In the other, hosts knowingly exaggerate product benefits or hide flaws to chase traffic and quick profit. Treating these as separate problems matters, because responsibility and the best fixes differ. Unintentional mistakes grow out of uneven access to information between merchants and hosts, while deliberate tricks are shaped by rivalry among hosts, gaps in oversight, and how easily audiences can be fooled.

How platforms, hosts, and merchants shape each other

To explore unintentional false claims, the study builds a model that tracks how three key players respond to one another over time: the host who introduces the product, the merchant who controls product information, and the platform that sets the rules. The model shows that if hosts keep working with merchants who hide facts, merchants are encouraged to keep cutting corners. By contrast, when platforms carry out stricter checks and meaningful fines, both hosts and merchants lean toward careful promotion and honest disclosure. Still, different mixes of costs, reputation risks, and penalties can trap the system in unhealthy patterns where all three sides quietly tolerate misleading messages.

When cheating becomes a competitive habit

For intentional deception, the authors look inside the community of hosts itself. They picture hosts as dots in a web where a few “head” hosts have many connections and most “tail” hosts have few. Each host can watch neighbors, copy what seems profitable, or stick with their own expectations. Simulations on this network reveal that hosts with different levels of influence behave differently. Mid-tier and “shoulder” hosts tend to settle on truthful advertising, valuing long-term trust. Tail hosts, under pressure to stand out, are more likely to keep using risky tactics. Head hosts swing between honest and deceptive behavior, shielded by large audiences and stronger bargaining power.

Why scale, viewers, and rules all matter

The virtual marketplace itself changes the balance between truth and lies. When there are not many hosts, rules are still forming and strategies waver. As the network grows moderately, clear standards and shared expectations make truthful promotion attractive. But if the system becomes very large and crowded, competition heats up, monitoring struggles to keep pace, and false advertising can spread quickly across the web of connections. The behavior of consumers is just as important. A higher share of sharp-eyed viewers, who rely on their own judgment rather than hype, pushes hosts toward honest claims, because trickery no longer pays. The study also finds that extreme regulatory approaches backfire: very weak oversight invites abuse, while overly harsh and wide-ranging crackdowns can exhaust resources and alienate hosts.

What smarter governance could look like

From these patterns, the authors draw practical lessons for policy and platform design. They recommend that government agencies combine moderate coverage with strong penalties for clear violations, focusing special attention on the most influential hosts. Platforms, in turn, should invest in efficient monitoring systems and apply penalties that are firm but proportionate, while also rewarding reliable hosts with better exposure and opportunities. Training hosts, improving information sharing with merchants, and helping consumers sharpen their judgment all work together to support truthful advertising.

What this means for everyday users

In simple terms, the paper concludes that false advertising in live e-commerce is not a problem of a few bad actors alone, but of incentives built into the whole system. When platforms watch closely yet fairly, governments target big offenders with serious consequences, merchants are transparent, and viewers learn to question what they see, honest promotion becomes the safer and more profitable path for hosts. That, in turn, helps restore trust so that watching a livestream feels less like a gamble and more like a reliable way to discover new products.

Citation: Wang, N., Chen, X. An evolutionary game analysis of dual-model governance for false advertising in live e-commerce: multi-agent and complex network perspectives. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 13, 653 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-026-06647-9

Keywords: live e-commerce, false advertising, online consumer trust, platform regulation, influencer marketing