Over half of online-purchased outdoor gear fails quality tests; Jack Wolfskin, Columbia on the list.
As the weather gets colder, ski resorts in northern China are becoming lively again, and many citizens are starting to purchase various types of outdoor gear. However, a recent comparative test by the Beijing Municipal Consumer Association on outdoor functional clothing sold on online shopping platforms revealed concerning quality issues. Out of 40 samples tested in this comparison, 22 did not meet national standards in one or more test items, with half of the samples making exaggerated claims about their functionality—especially those advertising moisture-wicking and quick-drying features, which were found to potentially involve false advertising. Notably, several well-known brands such as Jack Wolfskin and Columbia were among them.
The unqualified rate for outdoor clothing samples reached 55%
Because outdoor functional clothing tends to be relatively expensive, many consumers opt to shop via various e-commerce channels for better value. But can the quality of these products really be trusted? To find out, the Beijing Consumers’ Association had its staff purchase the samples for this comparative test in the role of ordinary consumers from online shopping platforms such as YHD, Dangdang, HaolaiBuy, JD.com, Kuba, MBS, and Amazon. The samples involved 40 pieces of outdoor functional clothing produced or distributed by 33 enterprises across 8 provinces and cities—Beijing, Zhejiang, Shanghai, Fujian, Guangdong, and Shandong—offering broad representation and relevance.
To ensure the scientific rigor of the sampling, this comparative test was commissioned to the National Textile Products Quality Supervision and Inspection Center. Testing was carried out according to GB5296.4-1998 "Instructions for Consumer Products – Instructions for Textiles and Apparel," GB18401-2010 "National Basic Safety Technical Code for Textile Products" to evaluate product usage instructions, fiber content, pH value, and formaldehyde content. Additionally, based on standards such as GB/T 21295 "Technical Requirements for the Physicochemical Properties of Apparel," FZ/T64010 "Far Infrared Emission Rate," GB/T18830 "UV Protection Performance," FZ/T73023 "Antibacterial Knitted Products," GB/T20944.1~2 "Antibacterial Performance," and GB/T21655.1 "Moisture Wicking and Quick-Drying Performance," the functional attributes claimed or promoted in the products' labeling and marketing materials were tested.
The test results showed that out of the 40 samples in this comparative test, 22 failed to meet one or more national standard requirements, resulting in an unqualified rate as high as 55%. Half of the samples made exaggerated functional claims, particularly those advertising moisture-wicking and quick-drying properties, which were suspected of false advertising.
The unqualified rate for functional attributes reached 52.5%
Further insights reveal that the issues found in the outdoor functional clothing samples were diverse, ranging from minor problems like product labeling to critical factors that significantly influence pricing.
For example, among the 40 samples tested, five lacked proper Chinese labeling or had inaccurate markings, failing to meet national standards—about 12.5% of the total. Functional clothing typically uses relatively simple fabric fibers, often single-component chemical fibers, which are less prone to issues. However, testing showed that three samples—including Decathlon and Jack Wolfskin—had actual fiber content that did not match the labeled values, accounting for 7.5% of the samples.
In general clothing tests, pH value and formaldehyde content are among the most concerning issues for consumers. Fortunately, this test showed that all samples met the national standards for both indicators, which is somewhat reassuring. However, the results for the most crucial functional attributes of outdoor gear were less optimistic.
It was revealed that the functional attributes tested in this round mainly included UV protection, moisture wicking and quick drying, waterproofing, breathability, antibacterial performance, anti-static properties, and warmth retention. Testing found that 21 out of the 40 samples failed to meet national standards in one or more functional tests, accounting for a significant 52.5%.
Specifically, moisture wicking and quick drying refers to a garment’s ability to quickly absorb sweat produced by the body, move it to the outer layer, and allow it to evaporate as fast as possible, helping the wearer stay dry. However, nearly 40% of the products (16 samples) did not meet the standard requirements for this function. Products such as the Jack Wolfskin Men's Two-Piece Breathable Warm Waterproof Ski Jacket and the Columbia Men's Stain-Resistant Waterproof Three-in-One Jacket were among those failing. Regarding waterproof performance, six samples—including the U.S. First Outdoor Fourth Generation Windproof, Waterproof, Breathable, and Warm Two-Piece Jacket—also failed to meet national standards.
Additionally, out of the 40 samples, seven claimed UV protection. Testing showed that only one sample from the Civitis brand did not meet the standard requirements.