June, 2015 [ Decisions]

1. The advertisement for a used “Luxgen 7 SUV” posted by Mr. A, the person in charge of Zhong Xin (transliteration) Auto Shop, on 8891.com.tw 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 on him an administrative fine of NT$100,000.
2. Melaleuca The Wellness Company Taiwan, 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 office location. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$50,000 on the company.
3. My Voyages, 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 the contents of the participant contract. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$50,000 on the company.
4. Gorgeous Space Co., Ltd. sent out electronic propaganda in which the company compared the audience ratings of its programs and those of its competitors and also made the claim that “Gorgeous Space has had the highest audience rating for seven consecutive years.” The wording was a misleading representation with regard to quality of service in violation of Article 21 (4) in applying mutatis mutandis Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$300,000 on the company.
5. Mr. A, the person in charge of Family Sauna/Spa Co., posted in a newspaper advertisement the wording of “the biggest manufacturer and wholesaler,” “in business for 20 years” and “now holding the Thanksgiving 20^th Anniversary Celebration Sale.” 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 on him an administrative fine of NT$50,000.
6. Sunpak 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 multi-level marketing system. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$50,000 on the company.
7. Livi Life Business 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 multi-level marketing system. It also did not return products to participants within 30 days when the participants terminated their contracts as required by law. The conduct violated Article 24 in applying mutatis mutandis Article 21 of the Multi-level Marketing Supervision Act. The FTC ordered the company to immediately cease the unlawful acts as well as file its change of multi-level marketing system with the FTC within 10 days after receiving the disposition. The FTC also imposed on it an administrative fine of NT$2.1 million.

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