104 Information Technology Co., Ltd.

Case:

Key Words:

job bank, rate of use by jobseekers, job-seeking channel

Reference:

Fair Trade Commission Decision of May 4, 2011 (the 1017th Commissioners' Meeting), Disposition Kung Ch'u Tzu No. 100072

Industry:

Activities of Employment Placement Agencies (7810)

Relevant Laws:

Paragraph 3 applicable mutatis mutandis Paragraph 1, Article 21 of the Fair Trade Law

Summary:

1. 104 Information Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 104 Co.) was reported to have claimed on its website "rate of use by jobseekers three times higher than our competitors; the 2009 job bank survey by the Nielsen Company (hereinafter referred to as Nielsen Co.) showed that 104 Job Bank was the most popular job search website among jobseekers," and "the survey by Nielsen Co. revealed that 65.1% of jobseekers used 104 Job Bank while 18.6% used competitor B and 11.6% used competitor C, making the rate of use of 104 Job Bank by jobseekers three times higher than our competitors…" The advertisement was found to be false and untrue.
2. Findings of the FTC after investigation:
   The investigation showed that the questions in the survey conducted by Nielsen Co. on the issue of "the channel most often used by new jobseekers" were designed to ask new jobseekers about the "channels you use" and the "channel you most often use" respectively. The choices for both questions were entirely identical but the results varied. In the "channels you use" category, 104 Job Bank scored 43%, Job Bank B 31%, and Job Bank C 13%. In the "channel you most often use" category, 104 Job Bank scored 28%, Job Bank B 8%, and Job Bank C 5%. Thus, as 104 Co. claimed that the information shown in the advertisement had been quoted from the aforesaid result of survey by Nielsen Co., it must have been aware that the "channels jobseekers use" and the "channel jobseekers most often use" were two related but separate questions asked in the survey. Although related, the two questions had dissimilar nature and results. The conduct of distorting the results and putting them to use through public announcement for certain purposes shall be deemed false, untrue, and misleading.
3. Grounds for disposition:
   Job search channels are always diverse and using them simultaneously do not give rise to any conflicts among them. Jobseekers can use multiple job search channels at the same time according to their interest and need. As a matter of fact, most jobseekers do employ the help of various channels for the purpose of looking for work in order to increase their chances of success. It is impossible for online job banks to expect jobseekers to use only one single job search website. Hence, the "rate of use by jobseekers" indicated in the said advertisement should have been calculated in accordance with all the job search channels jobseekers used instead of just the channel most often used. 104 Co. distorted the results of the survey conducted by Nielsen Co. and claimed 104 Job Bank had "rate of use by job seekers three times higher than that of our competitors" and "the rate of use of 104 Job Bank by jobseekers is three times higher than that of the competitors" only based on the outcome of the survey on the "channels you use." This could mislead people into believing that the "rate of use by jobseekers" of other job banks was three times less than that of 104 Job Bank and thus have an effect on the willingness of trading counterparts to use other job banks for job search. It was thus deemed as a false, untrue and misleading advertisement in violation of Paragraph 3, Article 21 of the Fair Trade Law and Paragraph 1 could apply mutatis mutandis. The FTC therefore ordered 104 Co. to immediately cease the unlawful act and also imposed on the company an administrative fine of NT$500,000.

Appendix:
104 Information Technology Co. Ltd's Uniform Invoice Number: 84598349

Summarized by: Hsu, Tzung-Yu ; Supervised by: Hsu, Hung-Jen