CEDCA Taiwan Co., Ltd. allegedly violated Article 21 of the Fair Trade Law by false advertising of the American Culture Camp
Case:
CEDCA Taiwan Co., Ltd. allegedly violated Article 21 of the Fair Trade Law by false advertising of the American Culture Camp
Key Words:
American Culture Camp in Taiwan, false advertising
Reference:
Fair Trade Commission Decision of September 10, 2003 (the 618th Commissioners’ Meeting); Disposition (92) Kung Chu Tzu No. 920
Industry:
Other Educational Services (7990)
Relevant Law:
Article 21 of the Fair Trade Law
Summary:
1. The Fair Trade Commission received a complaint alleging, in brief, as follows:
CEDCA Taiwan Co., Ltd. (CEDCA) failed to carry out the “American Culture Camp in Taiwan” (the Camp) as advertised in its promotional literature. Upon arriving for registration on 15 July 2002, the complainant found that the quality of the instructors, accommodations, and security arranged by CEDCA fell far short of that advertised in the promotional literature. The camp brochure said that approximately 50 selected American students with outstanding academic records would participate in the camp, but in fact only six or seven foreign students attended the first session of the camp (1 July to 13 July) and only three or four remained in camp at 2:30 pm on 15 July when the session was officially recessed, which varied tremendously from the promotional materials.
2. The CEDCA’s advertising stated that “approximately 50 American students will participate by invitation." The commission inspected the execution of the invitation plan submitted by CEDCA, its correspondence with US schools, and the name list of participating foreign students. Washington Academy stated that 10 to 15 persons were scheduled to participate but only 6 students and 3 instructors actually attended; the Gier School stated that 12 persons were scheduled to participate, but only one student attended; St. Johnsbury Academy stated that at least 10 persons were scheduled to participate, but none attended due to the 911 attacks and continued unstable international travel conditions; Maine Central Institute stated that 10 to 15 students were scheduled to participate, but only one student (Johanne Nunez) attended, because willingness to participation was greatly diminished by global economic conditions and incidents. Ultimately, only 12 foreign students and teachers accepted the invitation and made the trip, so the number of participating foreign students was inconsistent with the advertisements in March and April 2002 claiming that “approximately 50 American students will participate”.
3. An examination on the “foreign student participant name list” provided by CEDCA and noting the session and time of participation revealed that only 2 foreign students attended the first session held from 1 July to 13 July; 4 foreign students attended the second session from 15 July to 27 July (including 2 foreign students from the first session); and 10 foreign students attended the third session from 29 July to 10 August (including 1 student from first session). The number of foreign students that participated in the 3 sessions was 2, 4, and 10 respectively, instead of more than 10 as advertised. Despite CEDCA’s assertions that they did not intend the rough estimate of 42 to 47 foreign students from the aforementioned four American schools participating in the program as a false or misleading advertisement to deceive the consumers, it is not convincing to claim the 911 attacks as the cause of the low participation rate, as the advertisement was published in March and April of 2002, almost more than six months after the 911 attacks occurred on 11 September 2001. The 911 attacks did have some impacts on the domestic territory of the United States, but whether they would affect American language education in Taiwan is questionable. The CEDCA asserted that its failure to fulfill its promise on the invitation to the 50 foreign students was caused by difficulties in the procedures for international travel following the 911 attacks. But this excuse was unpersuasive, because according to the written replies from the four American schools, the failures to make the trip were partially due to issues relating to application procedures and expenses. The CEDCA failed to prove that they had an advance list specifying 50 foreign students scheduled to participate, and failed to make a timely announcement to correct the program details and avoid misleading consumers once it had become apparent that the number of participants was likely to decrease. The evidence submitted by CEDCA, mostly letters dated after the complaint, could not relieve it of its responsibility for the false advertisement, which constituted a violation of Article 21(3) of the Fair Trade Law.
Appendix:
CEDCA Taiwan Co., Ltd.’s Uniform Invoice Number: 16312417
Summarized by Chiang, Kuo-Lun; Supervised by Wu, Ting-Hung