June, 2016 [ Decisions]

1. Taiwan Star Telecom violated Article 25 of the Fair Trade Act by purchasing the advertising keywords of its competitors. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$600,000 on the company.
2. When recruiting franchisees for the “Bonjour Prince No.1 crispy crust cake” chain, Mr. A did not fully disclose the expenses required to purchase raw materials during operation to his trading counterparts in writing before contract signature. By failing to provide such important franchise information, Mr. A violated Article 25 of the Fair Trade Act. In addition to ordering Mr. A to immediately cease the unlawful act, the FTC also imposed on him an administrative fine of NT$50,000.
3. Venus International Co., Ltd. adopted the business symbol “Marilyn” of its competitor Marilyn International Enterprise Co., Ltd. to produce inappropriate keyword strings and posted them on Google. The keyword strings included “using Venus Marilyn to make your husband love you more,” “helping you become a perfect Marilyn,” etc. and they were linked to the Venus company website. The practice was obviously unfair conduct able to affect trading order in violation of Article 25 of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$50,000 on the company.
4. When marketing a tire pressure detector, Fu Lun Motors Co. and Bai Ling (transliteration) Co., Ltd. claimed that “starting in Nov. 2014, all new cars were required to have a tire pressure detector when leaving the factory and on Jul. 1, 2016 it was made mandatory that every car had to be equipped with a tire pressure monitoring alarm.” It was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to the product able to affect 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.
5.  On its company website and Facebook, Zuzai Creative Living Co., Ltd. posted some wording against down clothing products, including “Have you become an accomplice in order to keep warm?” “You wear a down jacket in deep winter to warm your body and your heart, but do you realize you (probably) have become an accomplice while keeping yourself warm?” “The brutal fact is that the down jacket you wear (if it is made by some inhumane manufacturer who plucks feathers from live animals) needs at least the feathers plucked from four live geese or ducks or one goose whose feathers are plucked four times while it’s alive and this nightmare is the source of the material for the down jacket you wear.” “Do you care about animals whose feathers are plucked while they are alive?” “If you make the wrong choice, your warmth comes from such brutal tortures.” “We use natural fibers scientifically produced to replace feathers plucked from live animals.” Footage of live geese and ducks getting their feathers plucked was also shown. The practice was a misleading representation with regard to product manufacturing able to affect transaction decisions in violation of Article 21 (1) 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$300,000.
6. Apex International 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 office location. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$50,000 on the company.
7. Cite Publishing Ltd. distributed electronic advertising messages claiming the viewing rate of its “Designer” program, compared to the programs of its competitors, was “No. 1 and a double champion.” The claim was a misleading representation with regard to quality of service able to affect transaction decisions 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$200,000 on the company.
8. On the rooftop garden layout for the “OH! 1796” housing project, Sheng Jun (transliteration) Construction Co., Ltd. and Xin Yue (transliteration) Advertising Co., Ltd. marked the terrace area as an infinity pool. 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 administrative fines of NT$800,000 and NT$450,000 on the two companies, respectively.
9. The level above the bathroom in the model home displayed by An Jia International Corporation and Han Cheng (transliteration) Real Estate Co., Ltd. for the “An Jia T House” presale home project could easily give consumers the wrong impression that it was a legal mezzanine. The marketing approach was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to content and use of product able to affect transaction decisions in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed administrative fines of NT$400,000 and N$300,000 on the two companies, respectively.
10. Uber Taiwan posted on driveuber.tw the wording of “Join the hottest sharing platform free of charge, drive your own car and choose your own time to earn an extra ten thousand each week.” It was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to content of service able to affect transaction decisions 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$1 million on the company.
11. The advertisement Kwang Yang Motor Co., Ltd. posted on its company website for the “KYMCO G6E 125CC scooter” was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to quality of product able to affect transaction decisions in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$600,000 on the company.
12. The advertisement for the “KYMCO G6E 125CC scooter” that Jin Cheng (transliteration) Motor Co., Ltd. posted on rakuten.com.tw was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to quality of product able to affect 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.
13. In an advertisement for the “Kaohsiung Small Town (translation)” housing project that was located in an agricultural zone, Kuo Cheng Construction and Development Co., Ltd., Tong Young Advertising Co., Ltd. and Dong Li (transliteration) International Advertising Co., Ltd. claimed the site was in an ecological park with a lake and beautiful scenery. 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 administrative fines of NT$400,000, NT$200,000 and NT$50,000 on the three companies, respectively.
14. In an advertisement for the “Feng Jiao Xi (transliteration)” housing project, Hua Run (transliteration) Construction Co., Ltd. marked the vacant, lot outside the first floor, the management committee office and the rooftop terrace as the space for a spa, hot spring pool or swimming pool, steam room, sauna room and foot-soaking pool. 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. In addition to ordering the company to immediately cease the unlawful act, the FTC also imposed on it an administrative fine of NT$1.5 million.
15. Jing Ing United International, a multi-level marketing business, did not file with the FTC before changing it sales system and product 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.
16. Lifestyles International Holdings Corporation, 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. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$50,000 on the company.
17. Market Taiwan, a multi-level marketing business, violated (A) Article 7 (1) of the Multi-level Marketing Supervision Act by failing to file with the FTC before changing its sales system and product items and (B) Subparagraphs 1 and 3 of Article 14 of the same act for failing to include in contracts signed with participants statutorily required information regarding the sales system and products or services and stipulating the grace period for participant withdrawal that was against related regulations and disadvantageous to participants. In addition to ordering the company to immediately cease the (B) acts as well as sign contracts that included statutorily required information and submit a copy to the FTC for reference with participants who joined the company after the Multi-level Marketing Supervision Act entered into force within 30 days after receiving the disposition, the FTC also imposed an administrative fine of NT$1 million on the company.

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