1. Sinphar Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. violated Article 19 (1) of the Fair Trade Act by restraining downstream price setting for the company’s products. In addition to ordering the company to immediately cease the unlawful act, the FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$2.5 million on the company.
2.  Greater Taipei Area Le Le (transliteration) Gas Enterprises Co. did not comply with the FTC’s order specified in Disposition Kung Ch’u Tzu No. 105028 dated April 13, 2016 and continued to unlawfully promote liquefied petroleum gas safety devices. The practice was in violation of the second section of Article 42 of the Fair Trade Act. In addition to ordering the company to immediately cease the unlawful act, the FTC took legal action against the person in charge of the company and referred the case to the prosecutor’s office.   
3.  Jin Wei (transliteration) Enterprise Co., Ltd., a multi-level marketing business, did not file with the FTC before beginning operation. The conduct was in violation of Article 6 (1) of the Multi-level Marketing Supervision Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$150,000 on the company.
4.   DigiDom Cable TV Co., Ltd. posted commercials to compare its operating items with those of competitors to promote its cable TV services. The conduct was a false and misleading representation with regard to content and quality of service that was able to affect transaction decisions. It was 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.   Kimberley-Clark Taiwan posted an advertisement to compare diapers on “‘Huggies Mama Laboratory’ Unveiling the Secret behind Dry Baby Butts” using an inappropriate interpretation to demonstrate that its products could absorb more urine and keep babies’ butts dry. It also claims that “90% of mothers are willing to switch to Huggies after seeing the experiment.” It was a false and misleading representation with regard to quality of product that was able to affect transaction decisions and was in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$800,000 on the company.
6. When marketing the “Dr. Light” light bulbs on the Kuai 3 Online Shopping Mall, Kuai 3 e-Commerce Service Co., Ltd. and Sasa Bella (translation) International Co., Ltd. posted the claims “Dr. Light omni-directional L8 10W cool white bulbs with CNS certification” and “Dr. Light omni-directional L8 10W warm white light bulbs with CNS certification.” The   wording was a false and misleading representation with regard to quality of product that was able to affect transaction decisions and was in violation of Article 21(1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$50,000 on each company.
7. In an advertisement posted to market the ASUS “USB-N10 Nano wireless network card,” Kuai 3 e-Commerce Service Co., Ltd. claimed “the software AP enables safely information sharing through wireless networks” but did not disclose the limitations of the backup operating system for the software AP.” The wording was a false and misleading representation with regard to quality of product that was able to affect transaction decisions and was in violation of Article 21(1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$50,000 on the company.
8. In an advertisement posted to market the ASUS “USB-N10 Nano wireless network card,” PChome Online Inc. and Equal Technology Co., Ltd. claimed “the software AP enables safely information sharing through wireless networks” but did not disclose the limitations of the backup operating system for the software AP.” The wording was a false and misleading representation with regard to quality of product and could have affected transaction decisions in violation of Article 21(1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$50,000 on each company.
9. Morinda 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.
10. When marketing the “Ming Da-Zhen Pin Yuan (transliteration)” housing project located in Taoyuan District of Taoyuan City, Ming Da (transliteration) Construction Co., Ltd. and He Chen (transliteration) Advertising Co., Ltd. posted an online advertisement using language for regular residential units for the project which was located in a Category B industrial area. The conduct was a false and misleading representation with regard to product and also had an effect on transaction decisions. It was in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed administrative fines of NT$1.8 million and NT$800,000 on the two companies, respectively. 

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