A complaint alleging Maplix Int'l Cosmetics Co., Ltd. and Cosmetic Interflow Association of R.O.C. made false presentations in a cosmetics vocational training advertisement
Case:
A complaint alleging Maplix Int'l Cosmetics Co., Ltd. and Cosmetic Interflow Association of R.O.C. made false presentations in a cosmetics vocational training advertisement
Key Words:
Maplix, Cosmetic Inferflow Association of R.O.C., cosmetics vocational training
Reference:
Fair Trade Commission Decision of December 7, 2000 (the 474th Commissioners' Meeting); (89) Kung Tsan Tzu No. 8810305-010 and Disposition (89) Kung Ch'u Tzu No. 210
Industry:
Cosmetics and Beauty Services Industry (8991)
Relevant Laws:
Article 21 of the Fair Trade Law
Summary:
1. The Employment and Vocational Training Administration (the "Training Administration") under the Council of Labor Affairs forwarded to the Fair Trade Commission (the Commission) a complaint alleging that Maplix Int'l Cosmetics Co., Ltd. made false presentations in a cosmetics vocational training advertisement. The Commission reached a consensus with the Training Administration. In consideration of the said consensus, the Commission has decided to investigate the allegations with respect to Maplix false advertising.
2. The advertisement, reference number "Chi Yeh Mung Tzu No. 87018; class 13," was published in the China Times on April 1998. The advertisement content was provided, reviewed, and approved by Maplix staff. The advertisement, reference number "Chi Yeh Mung Tzu No. 88026; class 21," was published in the Liberty Times and the Taiwan Daily News and commissioned by the Cosmetic Interflow Association of R.O.C. (the "Cosmetics Association"). The content of the advertisement and the cost of advertising placement were supplied by the Cosmetics Association.
3. Regarding Maplix and the "Free Cosmetics Vocational Training Student Recruitment" advertisement, an August 2, 1999 letter (reference number Chih Kui Tzu No. 015108) of the Training Administration stated that Maplix did not apply with the Training Administration for the establishment of a primary or secondary vocational training center, and the Training Administration did not commission the company to carry out vocational training. Maplix stated that it had commissioned the advertisement published in the China Times in April 1998. However, Maplix argued that when the statement "in coordination with the Cosmetics Technique Training Class II Specialization of the Executive Yuan's Employment and Vocational Training Administration" appearing in the advertisement simply meant that Maplix was acting on its own initiative in responding with one of the government's various educational training policies. However, the name of the training class "Chi Yeh Mung Tzu No. 87018; class 13", and the statement "training tuitions and materials are completely free (during the training period) pursuant to Article 19 of the Vocational Training Administration Statute" appearing in the advertisement together were sufficient to mislead consumers into thinking that the advertisement was a government advertisement recruiting students to attend free training, or that the government had commissioned the company to recruit students on its behalf. But the Training Administration did not commission the company to carry out vocational training or to provide students for participation in free government vocational training. Regarding the Cosmetics Association and the "Free Cosmetics Vocational Training Student Recruitment" advertisement, a August 2, 1999 letter (reference number Chih Kui Tzu No. 015108) of the Training Administration stated that Maplix did not apply with the Training Administration for the establishment of a primary or secondary vocational training center, and the Training Administration did not commission the company to carry out vocational training. Maplix appeared before the Commission to give a statement and to submit proof that the Cosmetics Association had commissioned the company to carry out vocational training of association members. This information and evidence were sufficient to prove that before and after the Cosmetics Association had been established in December 1998, the association had commissioned Maplix to place advertisements to recruit students for vocational training. Without applying to the competent authority for permission to establish a primary or secondary vocational training institution, the Cosmetics Association commissioned an advertisement containing the words "Chi Yeh Mung Tzu No. 88026; class 21." Furthermore, the training content, training period, and training fee stated in the advertisement: ("The full amount of the tuition is subsidized and free to students pursuant to Yi Hsun T'ai (87) Nei She Tzu No. 8782499.") were sufficient to mislead consumers into believing the advertisement was a government advertisement that recruited students for free training, or that the government had commissioned Maplix to recruit students on its behalf. But the Training Administration had not commissioned the company to carry out vocational training or to provide students for free vocational training. Appendix Maplix Int'l Cosmetics Co., Ltd.'s Uniform Invoice Number: 89550317 Summarized by Kuo-lun Chiang; Supervised by Jack T. H. Wu