The dissemination of false information,
by Mr. Huang Te-en, that the Liberty Times restricted its advertising agencies
from accepting advertisements by advertisers who had previously placed advertisement
in its competitors' newspapers, is a deceptive behavior that is sufficient to
affect trading order, and is thus a violation of the Fair Trade Law
Chinese Taipei
Case:
The dissemination of false information, by Mr. Huang Te-en, that the Liberty Times restricted its advertising agencies from accepting advertisements by advertisers who had previously placed advertisement in its competitors' newspapers, is a deceptive behavior that is sufficient to affect trading order, and is thus a violation of the Fair Trade Law
Key Words:
advertising agency, Liberty Times, dissemination of false information
Reference:
Fair Trade Commission Decision of August 8, 2002 (the 561st Commissioners' Meeting); Disposition Kung Ch'u Tzu No. 091122
Industry:
General Advertising Services (7601)
Relevant Law:
Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law
Summary:
1. This case originated with a letter from an advertiser alleging that the Liberty Times, in violation of applicable provisions of the Fair Trade Law, refused to accept from advertising agencies any advertisements by advertisers who had previously placed advertisements with the competitors of the Liberty Times.
2. Upon investigating this case, the Fair Trade Commission discovered that the false information mentioned in the preceding paragraph had been spread by Mr. Huang Te-en, a newspaper advertising agency. Huang was not an advertising agency of the Liberty Times, and was upset about the higher rate charged by the Liberty Times with respect to his advertisement requests. Therefore, he deceived the advertisers by disseminating false information that the Liberty Times restricted advertising agencies from placing with it advertisements by advertisers who had previously advertised in the competitor newspapers. This gave the advertisers a negative impression of the Liberty Times, so they would hire Huang to publish their advertisements in other newspapers instead, by which means Huang sought improper profits.
3. Huang Te-en falls in the category of an “enterprise” defined as “any other person or organization that engages in transaction through the provision of goods or services” in Article 2(1)(iv) of the Fair Trade Law, so the Fair Trade Law is applicable to his actions. In addition, from the perspective of his methods and intent, Huang spread false market information as a means to mislead the relevant public to form a misunderstanding or make a wrong decision about the Liberty Times, and to induce or influence advertisers to trade with himself and thereby earn profit on the price margin and bonus. By disseminating the trade information at issue, he also misled the advertising clients, adversely affected advertising market conditions in Kaohsiung, and dealt a blow to the Liberty Times.
This conduct was a reprehensible breach of business ethics and impaired the nature of efficient competition, and constituted deceptive acts in violation of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law. Finally, after weighing Huang's sales volume, business duration, motives for the violation, pattern of conduct, business scale, cooperativeness during the investigation, and illegitimate profits gained, the Fair Trade Commission rendered a disposition against the violation and imposed an administrative fine of NT$50,000 pursuant to the fore part of Article 41 of the Fair Trade Law.
Summarized by Chen, Ei-Chen; Supervised by Cheng, Chia-Lin