Go to Content Area :::    
Home NewsOctober, 2018 [Decisions]
:::
News
:::
  1. TECO Electric & Machinery Co., Ltd. indicated on its website that the specifications of its R0511w and 17 other refrigerator models belonging to the "Little Fresh Green (translation) Series" had "level-1 energy efficiency". 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$400,000 on the company.
  2. Xian Hong (transliteration) Development and Construction Co., Ltd. posted the wording "150 ping residential villas" and "150 ping health-nurturing villas" in an advertisement for the "Avignon (translation)" housing project. It was a false and misleading representation with regard to content of product affecting transaction decisions in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$150,000 on the company.
  3. Fubon Multimedia Technology Co., Ltd. and Panatec (transliteration) Corporation posted an advertisement on momo.com for the "Panatec CELLA light-weight body shaper," claiming that the product had the function of "RF+CV for breaking animal fat" and could help users "reduce their waist to 23 inches." 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 administrative fines of NT$100,000 and NT$50,000 on the two companies, respectively.
  4. Vitalive Biotechnology 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 document to the participation contract, and 2) Article 20 (2) and Article 21 (2) of the same act by failing to process participant contract cancellation or termination statutorily. In addition to ordering the company to immediately cease the aforementioned unlawful act, the FTC imposed on it an administrative fine of NT$1 million.
  5. Ju Feng (transliteration) Enterprise Co., Ltd. indicated that the Tatung TDH-460B dehumidifier had "First-grade energy efficiency" and was rated in the "level-1 energy efficiency classification" in an advertisement posted on momo.com. 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.
  6. PX Mart Co., Ltd. adopted testimonial advertising to market products but did not honestly reflect the opinions, trust, discoveries and experiences of endorsers. The practice was a false and misleading representation with regard to quality of product and also could 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.
  7. When marketing the 2018 "Infiniti Q50" series, Nissan Taiwan posted the wording "passed certification by the three major new car assessment programs in the world" on its website and in the catalog. It was a false and misleading representation with regard to quality of product and also could affect transaction decisions in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$1 million on the company.
  8. The TV commercial for the "Pomelo Essential Oil Laundry Detergent" posted by Eastern Home Shopping and Leisure Co., Ltd. and Chih Chia Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. was a false and misleading representation with regard to quality of product and also could affect transaction decisions in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed administrative fines of NT$500,000 and NT$300,000 on the two companies, respectively.
  9. In an advertisement for the "Frigidaire 13L energy-saving and air-cleaning dehumidifier" posted on its website, Relon International claimed the product was rated as having "level-2 energy efficiency." The wording was a false and misleading representation with regard to quality of product and also could affect transaction decisions in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$100,000 on the company.
  10.  World Union Fortune Company, a multi-level marketing business, violated Article 7 (1) of the Multi-level Marketing Supervision Act by changing its product items and sales system without filing with the FTC in advance. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$200,000 on the company.
  11. In an advertisement for the KED-211 and KED-213 dehumidifiers posted on its website, KE & Kingstone Co., Ltd. claimed the products were rated as having Level-1 energy efficiency. It was a false and misleading representation with regard to quality of product and also could affect transaction decisions in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$150,000 on the company.
  12. When marketing the "HERAN HDH-1281 6-liter dehumidifier" on the Internet, Yahoo! Taiwan and HERAN Co., Ltd. posted the wording "level-1 energy efficiency," "the energy efficiency of this product is level 1" and "energy efficiency rating: level 1." It was a false and misleading representation with regard to quality of product and also could 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.
  13. When marketing on momo.com two types of "Hot Shapers" sweat-inducing pants (the super tight version) from the US for people too lazy to exercise, Fubon Multimedia Technology Co., Ltd. and Hong Wei (transliteration) Biotechnology Co., Ltd. claimed in the advertisement that the products had "four times the metabolic function" of similar products and also posted a list indicating that dancing in the sweat-inducing pants for 15 minutes was equivalent to dancing in regular pants for 45 minutes and the products could "burn fat/have high performance/reduce belly fat" and "have the function of breaking fat and shaping fat." The wording was a false and misleading representation with regard to quality and content of product and also could affect transaction decisions in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed administrative fines of NT$150,000 and NT$100,000 on the two companies, respectively.
  14. When marketing the "exclusive 'hotshapers' Neotex heating and sweat-inducing two-piece belt set (the limited dazzling gold edition)" on momo.com, Fubon Multimedia Technology Co., Ltd. and Qi Wei (transliteration) Enterprise Co., Ltd. advertised the product as able to "upgrade the metabolic function by three times" and "effectively raise the core temperature to improve natural metabolism and discharge of toxic substances." It was a false and misleading representation with regard to quality and content of product and also could affect transaction decisions in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed administrative fines of NT$150,000 and NT$100,000 on the two companies, respectively.
  15. When marketing the "large Japanese-style wheeled storage box that opens downward" on shop.com, Kuo Brothers Co., Ltd. and William (translation) Technology Enterprise Co., Ltd. claimed in the advertisement that the capacity of the product was 95L. It was a false and misleading representation with regard to quality of product and also could 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.
  16. Zhen Jun Tang (transliteration) Biotechnology Co., Ltd., a multi-level marketing business, violated Article 7 (1) of the Multi-level Marketing Supervision Act by changing its product items and sales system without filing with the FTC in advance. 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.》

Updated at:2018-11-26 14:54:35
Back