1. Yeong Jia Leh Cable TV Co., Ltd. offered the package free for one year and signed exclusionary provisions with apartment building management committees. The company offered excessively low prices for its services to impede new cable TV service providers from entering or competing in the same market. The practice was in violation of Subparagraph 3 of Article 20 of the Fair Trade Act. In addition to ordering the company to immediately cease the unlawful acts, the FTC imposed on it an administrative fine of NT$2.5 million.
2. Dafeng Cable TV Co., Ltd. offered the package for subscribers renewing their cable service contracts for free. The practice was enticement with low prices to impede competitors from entering the market or competing. It was likely to restrict competition in violation of Subparagraph 3 of Article 20 of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$1 million on the company.
3. During franchisee recruitment, the Cama Café Co., Ltd. did not fully disclose to trading counterparts in writing important franchise information, including the expenses associated with products and raw materials to be purchased before beginning operation or during the operation period, and the contents of trademark rights to be licensed to franchisees and the period during which they would remain valid. It was obviously unfair conduct affecting trading order in violation of Article 25 of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$100,000 on the company.
4. During franchisee recruitment, the JSP Enterprise Co., Ltd. did not fully disclose to trading counterparts in writing important franchise information, including the expenses related to products and raw materials to be purchased before beginning operation or during the operation period, and the ratios of contract cancellation or termination in the preceding year. 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.
5. During franchisee recruitment for the Happy Water House chain, Happy Water House International Co., Ltd., Shui Dang Dang (transliteration) International Co., Ltd. and IVO Creativity International Co., Ltd. did not fully disclose to trading counterparts in writing important franchise information, including the contents of trademark rights to be licensed to franchisees, the validity period, range of application and restrictions, the management plans of other franchisees in the same operating area, the total number of franchisees in all the counties and cities and their addresses, restrictions on the franchisee during the contract period, and the conditions and handling approaches of contract cancellation and termination. The company also failed to give trading counterparts a reasonable contract review period. It was obviously unfair conduct affecting trading order in violation of Article 25 of the Fair Trade Act. In addition to ordering the three companies to immediately cease the unlawful act, the FTC imposed administrative fines of NT$150,000, 100,000 and 100,000 on the three companies, respectively.
6. During franchisee recruitment for the Simple Mart chain, Mercuries & Associates Holding Ltd. did not fully disclose to trading counterparts in writing important franchise information, including the consolidated distribution mechanism and computerized automatic stock replenishment system to be adopted during operation, the minimum or standard quantities of products to be distributed, and the restrictions to be imposed on franchisees. It was obviously unfair conduct affecting trading order in violation of Article 25 of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$700,000 on the company.
7. Kang Hsuan Educational Publishing Enterprise Co., Ltd. gave cash and objects to junior high school teachers in Hsinchu County and City when holding the “Kang Hsuan Happy Christmas Raffle” in Dec. 2016. It was in violation of Article 25 of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$500,000 on the company.
8. Wonderful Life Enterprise Co., Ltd., a multi-level marketing business, violated 1) Article 7 (1) of the Multi-level Marketing Supervision Act for not filing with the FTC before changing its product items and sales system and 2) Subparagraphs 1 and 3 of Article 14 of the same act by failing to include in the participant contract statutorily required information regarding related regulations and ways to calculate product depreciation. The stipulations on the deduction of the product refunded were incompliant with regulations as well as disadvantageous to participants. In addition to ordering the company to immediately cease the aforementioned unlawful acts and sign with participants contracts carrying all statutorily required information and present them to the FTC within 30 days after receiving the disposition, the FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$300,000 on the company.
9. Cite Publishing Ltd. posted a commercial for the “Designer TV” show and claimed the program to be “The home design show with the highest viewing rate in the country.” It was a false and misleading representation with regard to quality of service affecting transaction decisions in violation of Paragraph 4 of Article 21 of the Fair Trade Act in applying mutatis mutandis Paragraph 1 of the same article. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$300,000 on the company.
10. Jin Niu (transliteration) Biotech Co., Ltd., a multi-level marketing business, violated Article 21 (2) of the Multi-level Marketing Supervision Act by failing to process participant withdrawals and refunds within 30 days after contract termination. In addition to ordering the company to immediately cease the unlawful act, the FTC imposed on it an administrative fine of NT$500,000.
11. Car Quality Automotive Co., Ltd. claimed the products had passed the “API certification” and “international API certification.” when marketing the “eni 5W-30 Engine Oil,” “eni 5W-40 Engine Oil” and “Aral 5W-40 Engine Oil” on Yahoo! Kimo Super Mall. It 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.
12. Mu Chuan International Co., Ltd., a multi-level marketing business, violated 1) Article 7 (1) of the Multi-level Marketing Supervision Act for not filing with the FTC before changing its product items and 2) Article 16 (2) of the same act by recruiting people with limited capacity for civil conduct without acquiring the written consent of their legal representatives in advance and attaching it to the contract. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$200,000 on the company.
13. Mr. A started his multi-level marketing business without filing with the FTC in advance. The conduct was in violation of Article 6 (1) of the Multi-level Marketing Supervision Act. The FTC imposed on him an administrative fine of NT$100,000.
14. Hung I hsin Chuan (transliteration) Co., Ltd., a multi-level marketing business, violated 1) Article 6 (1) of the Multi-level Marketing Supervision Act by failing to file with the FTC before staring operation, 2) Article 13 (1) of the same act by not signing contracts with participants joining its sales schemes or organization, and 3) Subparagraphs 1 and 3 of Article 14 of the same act for not indicating in participant contracts statutorily required information, including the complete list of product items and prices and methods used to calculate bonuses. The stipulations on the deductions of the products refunded were incompliant with regulations as well as disadvantageous to participants. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$300,000 on the company.
15. BioWin Life Inc., 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 the contents of its participant contract and participant requirements, product items, service prices, and its office location. 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.》