這起「三女子帶四孩多次續面」的爭議事件，在中國網路上引起廣泛討論，原本以為在雙方簽署調解協議後已經落幕，卻因為店家後續行為，導致事件再度反轉。

事情的開端是有網友爆料，稱有三名女子帶著四個孩子，到一家麵館用餐時，不斷要求「續面」，引發大批網民質疑她們是否只點一份麵卻吃到多人飽餐，甚至有人指責她們「佔便宜」。這則消息在網路上發酵，迅速成為熱門話題，也讓當事人承受極大的輿論壓力。

在輿論持續升溫的情況下，8月15日雙方曾簽署調解協議。根據協議內容，餐館方面向顧客道歉，雙方原本決定以和解的方式平息爭議。然而，事情並未就此畫上句號。

8月16日，當事顧客馬女士接受媒體採訪時，態度出現明顯轉變。她表示，自己決定不再和解，並將正式提告餐館老闆，理由是對方侵犯她及孩子們的肖像權。馬女士強調，店家在回覆網路評論時，用「確定」一詞讓外界誤以為她們僅僅點一份麵卻不斷續添，這種表述嚴重誤導公眾。更為嚴重的是，店家在發布相關視頻時，並未對三名女子與四名孩子的臉部進行馬賽克處理，這使她們的形象公開流傳，直接影響日常生活，甚至造成心理困擾。

另一方面，針對餐館聲稱她們「實際消費金額僅70多元」的說法，馬女士拿出付款截圖，證明當天消費超過140元，遠高於店家所說的數字。她認為，餐館不僅在協議後未誠信履行，更在簽署和解後不久，老闆竟然透過直播和發視頻繼續炒作事件，這本身就已經違反調解協議。

事件再度惹起輿論的關鍵點，在於「肖像權的侵犯」。馬女士認為，未成年人肖像被公開散布，後果極其嚴重，這是她決定走上法律途徑的重要原因。至於店家方面，媒體在8月16日多次嘗試聯繫餐館老闆，但電話始終無法接通，僅有語音提示要求留言，未獲得任何回覆。

這起事件之所以引發如此廣泛關注，不僅僅是因為「續面」本身，而是牽涉到餐飲消費糾紛、網路輿論導向、個人與未成年人肖像權保護等多重社會議題。如今隨著顧客決定提起訴訟，事件的走向可能將不再只是網路輿論的爭議，而會進入法律層面，等待司法判決來給出最後的結論。

This controversy, known online as the “three women with four children repeatedly asking for noodle refills” incident, initially seemed to have been resolved through mediation but has since taken a sharp turn due to the restaurant owner’s actions, reigniting public debate.

The dispute began when netizens claimed that three women brought four children to a noodle shop and kept asking for free refills, sparking accusations that they had ordered only one portion but fed everyone with it. The story quickly spread online, drawing widespread criticism and placing the women under intense public pressure.

On August 15, both parties signed a mediation agreement. According to the terms, the restaurant apologized, and both sides agreed to settle the matter peacefully. However, the issue did not end there.

On August 16, Ms. Ma, one of the women involved, told reporters that she no longer intended to reconcile and would file a lawsuit against the restaurant owner for violating her and her children’s portrait rights. Ms. Ma explained that the restaurant’s online response—stating “confirmed” when asked whether she had only ordered one bowl of noodles—misled the public into believing that she had been taking repeated refills from a single order. More importantly, the restaurant released videos of the incident without blurring the faces of either the women or the children. This, she argued, exposed their images to the public, caused disruptions to their daily lives, and inflicted psychological distress.

In addition, Ms. Ma disputed the restaurant’s claim that their total spending was “only a little over 70 yuan.” She provided payment records showing that they had spent more than 140 yuan, far exceeding what the restaurant asserted. She also pointed out that the owner had broken the mediation agreement by livestreaming and posting related videos afterward, which further harmed her and her family.

At the heart of this renewed dispute lies the question of portrait rights. Ms. Ma emphasized that exposing minors’ faces without consent is especially harmful and a key reason she decided to pursue legal action.

Meanwhile, reporters repeatedly tried to contact the restaurant owner on August 16, but his phone was unreachable, and only a voicemail prompt was available.

The case has drawn significant attention not just because of the “noodle refills” itself, but because it involves wider issues such as consumer disputes in the catering industry, the role of online public opinion, and, most importantly, the legal protection of portrait rights, particularly for minors. With Ms. Ma now moving forward with a lawsuit, the dispute is shifting beyond online debate and into the judicial arena, where a court ruling will ultimately determine the outcome.