Media Max International Co., Ltd. ran false advertisements on its Web site in violation of Article 21 of the Fair Trade Law
Case:
Media Max International Co., Ltd. ran false advertisements on its Web site in violation of Article 21 of the Fair Trade Law
Key Words:
false, misleading, advertising exchange center, admax Web site
Reference:
Fair Trade Commission Decision of November 9, 2000 (the 470th Commissioners' Meeting); Disposition (89) Kung Ch'u Tzu No. 183
Industry:
Information Software Services Industry (7501)
Relevant Law:
Article 21 of the Fair Trade Law
Summary:
1. In an advertisement on its own Web site, Media Max International Co., Ltd claimed that it was the "World's Largest Advertising Exchange Center For The Chinese Community." However Media Max is unable to prove truthfulness of the claim in the advertisement. The advertisement could easily leave consumers with erroneous expectations and cause them to do businesses with the company. It was suspected that the advertisement constituted false and misleading representations in violation of Article 21 of the Fair Trade Law. 2. On 18 January 2000, on its admax Web site, Media Max claimed that it was the "World's Largest Advertising Exchange Center For The Chinese Community". Media Max contended that the claim was the name of its software, the software was developed by the company itself, and that the software was the world's only automated advertising management and exchange platform in the Chinese language on the Internet. Media Max also contended there is no other competing system in the Internet of similar nature, becoming ["World's Largest Advertising Exchange Center For The Chinese Community"] was the company's mission, and that its Web site currently accommodates over 300 Web-site media franchisees, a figure that exceeds any other Web sites. Media Max contended that its Web site could be said to be the largest. Media Max failed, however, to furnish objective facts proving that its admax Web site was what was claimed. To avoid a dispute, on 24 April 2000, Media Max revised the claim from the "World's Largest Advertising Exchange Center For The Chinese Community" to "Advertising Exchange Center For Worldwide Chinese Community." 3. Disposition and Grounds (1) On 18 January 2000, the claim in question was run on the admax Web site. Media Max contended that the claim was the name of its software. It said that it had developed the said software, that its software was the World's only automated advertising exchange and management platform in the Chinese language on the Internet, and that no other competitor on the Internet uses a system of similar nature. Media Max's contentions, however, merely described the characteristics and functions of its exchange center. There was no positive connection between the characteristics and functions of its software system and the claim. If "World's Largest Advertising Exchange Center For The Chinese Community" was the name of Media Max's software, and the words AdMax and AD Max are placed before and after the said name, the consumers could think that the credentials, nature, and services of the admax Web site are characterized by the name ["World's Largest Advertising Exchange Center For The Chinese Community"]. The comparative and emphatic wording in the said name or claim is likely to cause the general consumer to have misconceptions upon which decisions are made to do business with Media Max. It is clear therefore that the claim constitutes a false and misleading presentation. (2) Although the Internet is a virtual space, the size of a Web site on the Internet can be determined based on objective facts such as advertising revenues, possession of rights to serve as an agent for large Web sites, viewable page space, number of members, and market share. Media Max contended, however, that the domestic market lacked credible domestic auditors capable of appraising revenues, viewable page space, and number of members. It also contented that its advertising exchange center was different in nature from ad networks, which were in reality ad network agencies. The problem is Media Max knew that the domestic market lacked credible domestic auditors capable of appraising revenues, viewable page space, and number of members. Even if its exchange center was genuinely different in nature from those of other enterprises, the company's arbitrary claim "World's Largest Advertising Exchange Center For The Chinese Community" makes it both culpable and liable. (3) Media Max also contended that the claim in question was the company's mission, and that its Web site had more than 300 Web-site media franchisees, a figure greater than any other company. Media Max said that its Web site could be said to be the largest. However Media Max failed to furnish objective facts to prove that its admax Web site was "World's Largest Advertising Exchange Center For The Chinese Community." Besides some Web sites claimed that they have 2,000 Web-sites media in their alliance. Therefore, Media Max really has no basis for the claim in question. In sum, Media Max's contentions are in contradiction with the facts and logics and cannot be accepted. (4) In sum, the facts of Media Max's unlawful conduct were confirmed. After weighing the company's motives, revenues, cooperative attitude, degree of remorse, and degree of harm caused by Media Max's conduct to the trading order, the Commission ordered the company to immediately discontinue its offending conduct and imposed on it an administrative fine of NT$50,000 pursuant to the forepart of Article 41 of the Fair Trade Law .Appendix: Media Max International Co., Ltd.'s Uniform Invoice Number: 70441796 Summarized by Tai, Mei-Chin; Supervised by Tai, Pei-Yi