Customs follows up on HK$60,000 complaint
Hong Kong customs is actively following up on a case involving London-based beauty chain Opatra London after a woman complained she was cheated into paying more than HK$60,000 (US$7,700) for products and raised concerns about the company's operations, according to the South China Morning Post. Opatra London's outlet at Sha Tin New Town Plaza posted a notice over the weekend saying it had "temporarily suspended" operations, without elaborating.
Police told the SCMP they received a report last Wednesday from a 58-year-old woman who claimed she had bought HK$61,400 worth of products at the shop last month and questioned its sales practices.
Wider investigation and arrests
The complaint is among six that customs is investigating, with disputed sums ranging from HK$1,800 to HK$100,000, according to The Star and the SCMP. Customs has expanded its investigation into Opatra London following complaints of high-pressure sales tactics, and earlier this week raided a corporate secretarial office in Sheung Wan and detained two staff members from Opatra's local operations, The Star reported. At least one top executive at the Hong Kong operator has resigned since the arrests, the SCMP said. The brand's four Hong Kong branches — two in Sha Tin, one in Yuen Long, and one in Causeway Bay — have suspended operations, according to the SCMP.
Brand background and corporate distancing
Opatra London is a British hi-tech skincare brand founded in 2010 and headquartered in the UK, known for its luxury anti-ageing devices, according to its website as cited by the SCMP. The website says the company has offices in Spain and Las Vegas and sells products in more than 45 countries. It reportedly operated counters in major Hong Kong shopping centres, including Harbour City in Tsim Sha Tsui, and locations in Causeway Bay, as well as booths at beauty fairs and trade shows.
The Star reported that UK Companies House records show the company was incorporated in 2010 as Oro Gold Limited before adopting its current name in 2013. The same record shows its sole director, Efraim Salhov, also served as a director of Oro Gold Cosmetics Limited, a dissolved entity. The company has distanced itself from local distributor Sayles Retail following allegations of "deceptive sales practices" and denied any connection with another business, Orogold, The Star reported. Orogold denied any connection with Opatra London, saying it had filed a complaint with the privacy watchdog over false statements and the unauthorised online disclosure of personal information.
Former employee describes training and tactics
A former junior employee at Orogold, identified as Ms Chan, told The Star that she made about HK$30,000 a month bringing prospective buyers into the shop so senior staff could pitch products. She said top sales representatives could earn six figures a month thanks to exceptionally high commission rates, and that she resigned after less than a year due to the intense pressure.
"Staff were trained to identify individuals who were affluent, responsive to compliments and easily manipulated," Ms Chan said. "The goal was to secure the largest possible transaction during that single visit rather than relying on repeat business." She described a deliberate script that began by offering passers-by an eye cream sample near the shop entrance. If a customer expressed interest, staff led them inside and pitched a gift set. When the customer accepted, they were seated and greeted by store managers — often foreign nationals — who presented high-tier treatment packages while retaining the customer's credit card, she said. To wrangle hesitant customers, the manager would pretend to make a call to secure a "special offer," while another colleague made a surprised face, and staff would continue holding the card to process additional transactions as they upsold step by step. When a customer tried to leave, representatives shifted to compliments and flattering remarks to keep them in the shop, and the strategy also sought to prevent refund requests, Ms Chan said. She recalled an elderly woman in her sixties who spent an entire afternoon in the shop and ultimately spent HK$600,000.
Other consumer complaints
The SCMP reported that an 88-year-old was allegedly pressured into spending HK$100,000 (US$12,750) at a booth in Wing On department store in Sheung Wan in April. According to a social media post by the woman's daughter, the salesperson did not return the mother's credit card after the first transaction, kept it in a folder while trying to sell more, and swiped it four times over three hours for skincare, a beauty treatment device and 24 detoxifying sessions. The daughter claimed that her mother's helper tried to intervene and suggest leaving, but the "selling continued."
The Star also reported an account involving Heidi Leung's sister, who was three months pregnant when she visited Orogold's shop in Sha Tin's New Town Plaza. The sister and her husband were persuaded to buy HK$49,800 worth of products they were told were pregnancy-safe, including an eye cream and a device touted as preventing stretch marks. Her obstetrician later revealed the skincare contained retinol, which poses risks to fetal development, and the device's manual explicitly prohibited use during pregnancy or breastfeeding. A staff member at Orogold said no brand disclosed all of its ingredients and offered a complimentary facial to retain the sale after being confronted. When the family demanded a full refund for unopened products, staff initially insisted the ingredients were suitable and claimed to have used them during pregnancy, but eventually agreed to a refund after several exchanges. A medical check confirmed that the small sample tested in-store had caused no harm to the baby.
Legal context
The SCMP reported that legal experts warned that practices such as credit card abuse, unwanted physical contact, and pressure to buy costly products could breach the Trade Descriptions Ordinance, which prohibits harassment, coercion and misleading conduct. The ordinance lists aggressive commercial practice as an offence involving tactics that significantly impair a consumer's freedom of choice through harassment, coercion or undue influence, as reported by The Star. Experts further said that if salespeople only used incessant verbal persuasion and the consumer bought out of a wish to escape the situation, it might not qualify as aggressive practice, but snatching a credit card or physically dragging a customer who tries to leave would be covered. Non-consensual physical contact could also trigger additional criminal liability, they added. The SCMP has contacted Asia Beauty Concepts, which manages Orogold, and the Consumer Council for comment.