December , 2014 [ Decisions] 

1. Shun Sheng (transliteration) Enterprise Co. used the excuse of holding a presentation on gas pipe shock prevention and giving gifts to attract people with no intention of making purchases to attend the event during which the company made false statements about the prices of their products. Afterwards, the company’s salespersons followed people home and pushed them into making purchases while their free will was under suppression. The overall sales practice was deceptive and obviously unfair conduct able to affect trading order in violation of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Act. In addition to ordering the company to immediately cease the unlawful act, the FTC also imposed on it an administrative fine of NT$800,000.
2. Xin Zhang (transliteration) Gas Co., Ltd. printed and distributed service notices which could easily mislead users to think that the company was an affiliate of their natural gas provider. Then the company used the excuse of performing safety inspections to push its gas safety devices. The overall marketing practice was deceptive conduct able to affect trading order in violation of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Act. Besides ordering the company to immediately cease the unlawful act, the FTC also imposed on it an administrative fine of NT$50,000.
3. Tian Ran (transliteration) Co., Ltd. applied the pretense of performing gas safety checks or providing after-sales service to push gas safety equipment. The overall sales practice was deceptive conduct 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$50,000.
4. Xin Nan (transliteration) Natural Gas Piping Enterprise Co. printed and distributed service notices which could easily mislead users to believe that the company was associated with their natural gas provider. The company then applied the pretext of performing safety inspections to push gas safety devices. The overall marketing practice was deceptive conduct able to affect trading order inviolation of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Act. In addition to ordering the company to immediately cease the unlawful act, the FTC also imposed on it an administrative fine of NT$50,000.
5. In the layout posted in an advertisement for its “Ban Shan Hui (transliteration)” housing project, Herzu Development Co., Ltd. marked the machine room area as part of the interior space. It was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to content and use of product in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$500,000 on the company.
6. Shaklee Taiwan Co., Ltd., a multi-level marketing business, did not file with the FTC before changing its sales items. The conduct was in violation of Article 7 (1) of the Multi-level Marketing Supervision Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$100,000 on the company.
7. In an advertisement for its“Shou Yao (transliteration)” building project, Ming Jie (transliteration) Construction Co., Ltd. posted the names of other businesses and used language and schematics for regular residential units. The conduct was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to quality and use of product in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$1.5 million on the company.
8. Sag Life Biotech Co., Ltd.,a multi-level marketing business, violated Article 6 (1) of the Multi-level Marketing Supervision Act for failing to file with the FTC before starting operation. In addition to ordering the company to sign contracts with its participants joining before February 20, 2014, and submit to the FTC the proof carrying statutorily required information in the contracts for reference within 90 days after receiving the disposition, the FTC also imposed on it an administrative fine of NT$100,000.
9. When marketing Sampo’s 10-inch DC energy-saving circulating fan on Momo online shopping mall, Fubon Multimedia Technology Co., Ltd. and JiuJian (transliteration) Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd. claimed the fan was equipped with the “considerate function of remote oscillation control.” It 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.
10. Kimoji Online Marketing Co., Ltd., a multi-level marketing business, made its participants sign an affidavit that would put them in a disadvantageous position when returning products upon withdrawal. The conduct was in violation of Subparagraph 3 of Article 14 of the Multi-level Marketing Supervision Act. The FTC ordered the company to immediately cease the unlawful act and also imposed on it an administrative fine of NT$100,000.
11. Da Vinci (translation) Building Block Enterprise Co. claimed on its website that its products were patented. It 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. 
12. Cité Media Holding Group distributed electronic advertising messages containing false claims. The practice was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to quality of service in violation of Article 21 (3) in applying mutatis mutandis Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$200,000 on the company.
13. SAVE Automobile Co., Ltd. posted on the Internet an advertisement for secondhand “Toyota Yaris”cars. The advertisement was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to price of product in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$100,000 on the company.
14. In the floor plan posted in an advertisement for its “Dreamer (translation)” housing project, You Wei (transliteration) Construction Co., Ltd. marked the machine room area as part of the kitchen and balcony space and the balcony area as part of the bedroom space. The conduct was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to content and use of product in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$600,000 on the company.

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