July , 2014 [ Decisions]

1. When marketing the units of its "Yue Wan--You YueQu (transliteration)" presale house project, Yi Qi (transliteration) Construction Co., Ltd. demanded  that homebuyers pay a deposit to see the contract. The practice was obviously unfair conduct able to affect trading order in violation of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$600,000 on the company.
2. By posting false advertisements to recruit franchisees for its "SKINFOOD" skincare cosmetic products and failing to disclose complete franchise information in writing before signing contracts with franchisees, Huang Yu (transliteration) Technology Co., Ltd. violated Articles 21 and 24 of the Fair Trade Act, respectively. In addition to ordering the company to immediately cease the unlawful acts, the FTC imposed on it an administrative fine of NT$300,000. 
3. Xin Hu (transliteration) Natural Gas Enterprise Co., originally called Xin Tai (transliteration) Gas Engineering Co., printed and distributed service notices that made it easy for consumers to mistake the company as an affiliate of their natural gas provider. The company then used the pretext of performing safety inspections to push its gas safety devices. The deceptive marketing was able to affect trading order in violation of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC ordered the company to immediately cease the unlawful act and also imposed on it an administrative fine of NT$200,000.
4. XinZhong (transliteration) Natural Gas Engineering Co. distributed service notices that made it easy for consumers to mistake the company as an affiliate of their natural gas provider. The company then used the pretext of performing safety inspections to push its gas safety devices. The deceptive marketing was able to affect trading order in violation of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC ordered the company to immediately cease the unlawful act and also imposed on it an administrative fine of NT$100,000.
5. HJ LOHAS Co., Ltd., a multi-level marketing business, violated Article 6 (1) of the Multi-level Marketing Supervision Act for not filing with the FTC before starting operation and Article 7 (1) of the same act for failing to register with the FTC before changing its multi-level marketing system. Besides ordering the company to register its multi-level marketing system change within 15 days after receiving the disposition, the FTC also imposed on it an administrative fine of NT$150,000.
6. The advertisement posted by East Power Mobility Co., Ltd. on its website for the "SK Networks V902" product was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to quality of product in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$50,000 on the company.
7. The advertisement posted by VIBO Telecom Inc. and East Power Mobility Co., Ltd. on their websites for the "SK V902" tablet computer was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to quality of product in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$50,000 on each company.
8. Cho Gyal Green Life Co., Ltd., a multi-level marketing business, violated Article 7 (1) of the Multi-level Marketing Supervision Act for failing to file with the FTC before changing its product items. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$50,000 on the company.
9. Energizer-Schick Taiwan Ltd. held a raffle but did not follow the timelineas previously advertised for consumers to register online. It was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to content of product in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$200,000 on the company.
10. When marketing its "Hong Fu (transliteration)" housing project, Jin Liang Yi (transliteration) Construction Co., Ltd. marked the balconies as part of the interior in its advertisements. The conduct was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to use and content of product in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. In addition to ordering the company to immediately cease the unlawful act, the FTC imposed on it an administrative fine of NT$100,000.
11. Fujitsu General (Taiwan) Co., Ltd. claimed on its website that the ASCG22LMT and 13 other models of air conditioners had been "Awarded the Energy Label by the Bureau of Energy, Ministry of Economic Affairs" and also posted a picture of the label. The conduct was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to quality of product in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$200,000 on the company.
12. Xiaomi Taiwan violated Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act for making a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to quantity of product when conducting online sales promotion activities for its Hongmi smartphone respectively on Dec. 9, 16 and 23, 2013. In addition to ordering the company to immediately cease the unlawful act, the FTC imposed on it an administrative fine of NT$600,000. 
    

    《In case of any discrepancy between the English version and the Chinese Version, the latter shall prevail.》