March, 2016 [ Decisions]

1. Bao Ren (transliteration) Gravel Co., Ltd., Zhi Jian (transliteration) Enterprise Co., Ltd., Bao Wen (transliteration) Co., Ltd., Yi Hua (transliteration) Gravel Co., Ltd., An Xin Enterprise Co., Ltd. and Yi Yu Enterprise Co., Ltd. met in 2013 and decided to jointly increase gravel prices. The concerted action was able to affect the supply-demand function in the gravel market in the central region and was in violation of Article 14 (1) of the Fair Trade Act at the time. The FTC imposed administrative fines of NT$400,000, 400,000, 400,000, 200,000, 100,000 and 100,000 on the said companies, respectively.
2. When marketing the “PadFone S” smartphone, ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS United Technology Co., Ltd., Senao International Co., Ltd. and Uitox International Pte., Ltd. advertised the product as having the e-purse function. The claim 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 administrative fines of NT$2 million, 600,000, 450,000 and 450,000 on the four companies, respectively,
3. TriWonder International Pte., Ltd., a multi-level marketing business, violated (1) Article 7 (1) of the Multi-level Marketing Supervision Act for failing to file with the FTC before changing its sales items and (2) Articles 16, (2), 21 (2) and 25 of the same act for failing to obtain in advance the written agreements of the representatives of people with limited capacity for civil conduct the company recruited to be participants and attach the agreements to the participant contracts, deducting non-statutory amounts when processing participants’ withdrawals and returned products upon contract termination, and not keeping multi-level marketing business information at the company’s main office. In addition to ordering the company to immediately cease the (2) unlawful acts, the FTC also imposed on it an administrative fine of NT$500,000.
4. TriWonder International Pte., Ltd., a multi-level marketing business, provided a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to the work experience of its general manager and management condition in the company brochure and during presentations. The conduct was in violation of Article 21 (1) 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$500,000.
5. When marketing the “Tenda FH303 300M” wireless router on the 17 Life group buy website, Kang Tai (transliteration) Digital Integration Co., Ltd. and i Dot Com posted the wording “$1,340 cheaper than the original $2,290” and “59% discount given.” It 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$50,000 on each company.
6. On the floor plans for the “Qian Jiang Yue (transliteration)” housing project, Ji Pin (transliteration) Construction Co., Ltd., Hong An (transliteration) Design Engineering Co., Ltd and Da Zhan Real Estate Enterprises claimed there would be “stone walkways, a pond, a pavilion, cherry trees and visitor parking spaces” with corresponding pictures displayed. 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 administrative fines of NT$400,000, 200,000 and 100,000 on the three companies, respectively.
7. LOTES International Development 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 sales system, product items and prices. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$50,000 on the company.
8. Fone Lin Internet Technology Co., Ltd., a multi-level marketing business, violated (1) Article 7 (1) of the Multi-level Marketing Supervision Act for failing to file with the FTC before changing its office location and sales system and (2) Article 14 of the same act for failing to fully disclose statutorily required information in participant contracts. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$1 million on the company.
9. TECO Electric and Machinery Co., Ltd. posted the claim “No. 1 energy-saving capacity, surpassing Japanese products and having the highest EER value” on the company website for its HS, LV and BV home air-conditioner series. The wording was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to quality of product and was able to affect transaction decision making. It was in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act and the FTC therefore imposed an administrative fine of NT$400,000 on the company.
10. In an advertisement posted on the Google mobile website, Far Eastern Department Stores Co., Ltd. claimed that “shopping on gohappy--cheaper than shopping on save & safe.” It was a 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$500,000 on the company.

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