1. Zhu Zhu (transliteration) Technology Co., Ltd. took rental home information from an online rental home service without acquiring the service’s consent and used it as the content of the company’s app to attract users to download the app and pay for value-added services. The marketing practice was obviously unfair conduct affecting trading order in violation of Article 25 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$50,000.
2. During franchisee recruitment, Presotea Co., Ltd. did not fully disclose to trading counterparts in writing important franchise information, including the expenses (products and raw materials to be purchased) required after operation began and the content, validity and range of use of trademark rights that franchisees were entitled to as well as restrictions. It was obviously unfair conduct affecting trading order in violation of Article 25 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$200,000.  
3. The FTC imposed a fine of NT$23.4 billion on the US company, Qualcomm Incorporated (hereinafter referred to as Qualcomm), for its violation of Subparagraph 1 of Article 9 of the Fair Trade Act for abusing its monopolistic status in the market for baseband chips that comply with CDMA, WCDMA and LTE mobile communications standards. Qualcomm blocked competition by refusing to license its standard-essential patents to other chipmakers and further requested that they sign an agreement with unfair provisions. In addition, Qualcomm blocked competition by adopting a “no license, no chip” policy and offering an exclusive rebate to some cell phone companies. The above-mentioned unfair business conduct directly or indirectly impeded other enterprises from competing and obstructed competition in the baseband chip market. In addition to the fine, the FTC also demanded that Qualcomm cease (1) applying stipulations in already signed contracts to require competitors to provide sensitive information with regard to chip prices, customers, sales volumes and product model numbers; (2) applying stipulations in already signed component supply contracts to stop supplying chips to cell phone makers obtaining chips from suppliers without authorization to use the company’s patents; and (3) applying stipulations in already signed contracts to offer discounts to businesses accepting exclusive dealing terms.
4. When marketing the “Du Xin Yuan (transliteration)” housing project, Sheng Fu (transliteration) Construction Co., Ltd. marked the balconies as part of the interior in the “E9 and E10 Unit layouts.” The practice was a false and misleading representation with regard to content and use of product affecting transaction decisions in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$800,000 on the company.
5. Huan Yu New Century Co., Ltd., a multi-level marketing business, violated Article 38 (3) of the Multi-level Marketing Supervision Act by not paying the 2017 annual fee to the Multi-level Marketing Protection Foundation. In addition to ordering the company to pay the fee within 14 days after receiving the disposition, the FTC imposed on it an administrative fine of NT$200,000. 
6. BeauteYi Taiwan, a multi-level marketing business, did not file with the FTC before changing its product items and sales system. 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 the presale home units of the “Fu Bao Jing Zhan (transliteration) housing project, Fu Bao (transliteration) Development and Construction Co., Ltd. indicated that there would be public facilities, including a lounge bar and a KTV. It was a false and misleading representation with regard to content and use of product affecting transaction decisions in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$500,000 on the company.
8. Jing He (transliteration) International Co., Ltd. claimed the product could “eliminate fat,” “burn fat” and “break up fat” when marketing the “3D Fat Removing Massager” on line. The wording was a false and misleading representation with regard to quality of product affecting transaction decisions in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$50,000 on the company.
9. Taiwan Inchaway Co., Ltd., a multi-level marketing business, violated Article 7 (1) of the Multi-level Marketing Supervision Act by 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. Extend International Co., Ltd. Taiwan, a multi-level marketing business, violated Article 7 (1) of the Multi-level Marketing Supervision Act by failing to file with the FTC before changing its product items and sales system. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$100,000 on the company. 

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