1.  Taiwan Longliqi Bioscience Co., Ltd., a multi-level marketing business, violated (1) Article 7 (1) of the Multi-level Marketing Supervision Act by changing its office location and product items without filing with the FTC in advance, (2) Article 13 (1) of the same act by failing to provide participants with an original copy of the participation contract when they joined the company’s schemes or organization, (3) Subparagraphs 1 and 3 of Article 14 of the same act by failing to include statutorily required information, such as complete descriptions of the sales system, multi-level marketing regulations and the rights and obligations of participants, in the participation contract, and also by stipulating participant withdrawal provisions that were inconsistent with related regulations and disadvantageous to participants, and (4) Article 16 (2) of the same act by recruiting people with limited capacity for civil conduct to be participants without acquiring the written consent of their legal representatives and attaching the consent to the participation contract. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$300,000 on the company.
2. Books.com.tw and Victory Shieh Co., Ltd. posted the wording “NFC totally waterproof, colorful and delicate Bluetooth speakers” when marketing “Sony SRS-XB12 Bluetooth speakers on the Internet. It was a false and misleading representation with regard to content of product and could also 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.
3. Nuo Yi (transliteration) Biotechnology Co., Ltd., a multi-level marketing business, violated Article 7 (1) of the Multi-level Marketing Supervision Act by changing the location of its main office and the company name without filing with the FTC within the statutory period. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$50,000 on the company.
4. Jun Teng (transliteration) Digital Technology Co., Ltd., a multi-level marketing business, violated (1) Article 7 (1) of the Multi-level Marketing Supervision Act by changing its sales system and product items without filing with the FTC in advance, (2) Article 21 (2) of the same act by failing to process participant withdrawal and returned goods within the statutory period, and (3) Article 38 (3) of the same act for not paying the 2019 annual fee to the Multi-level Marketing Protection Foundation and not paying up the Protection Fund class difference. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$550,000 on the company.
5. Kerry Billion International Network Co., Ltd., a multi-level marketing business, violated Article 7 (1) of the Multi-level Marketing Supervision Act by changing its sales system without filing with the FTC in advance. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$50,000 on the company.
6. AMASENSE International Co., Ltd., a multi-level marketing business, violated Article 7 (1) of the Multi-level Marketing Supervision Act by changing its office location without filing with the FTC in advance. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$50,000 on the company.
7. Taiwan Huixin Technology Co., Ltd., a multi-level marketing business, violated (1) Article 16 (2) of the Multi-level Marketing Supervision Act by recruiting people with limited capacity for civil conduct to be participants without acquiring the written consent of their legal representatives and attaching the consent to the participation contract, and (2) Article 20 (2) of the same act for failing to handle participant withdrawal and returned goods in accordance with the statutory calculation method within 30 days after contract cancellation or termination. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$200,000 on the company.
8. CloudMile Internet Co., Ltd. offered Cloud services and claimed on its company website that it was the only strategic partner in Asia using Google’s Cloud core technology as the foundation of its operations. The wording was a false and misleading representation with regard to service and could also affect transaction decisions. The practice was in violation of Paragraph 4 of Article 21 of the Fair Trade Act and Paragraph 1 of the same article was applicable mutatis mutandis. 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.》