Eight Wedding Photography Businesses in Tainan Region

Case:

Key Words:

false advertising, wedding gown, advertiser

Reference:

Fair Trade Commission Decision of August 8, 2012 (the 1083rd Commissioners' Meeting), Disposition Kung Ch'u Tzu No. 101085

Industry:

Other Personal Services (9690)

Relevant Laws:

Paragraph 3 of Article 21 applicable mutatis mutandis to Paragraph 1 of the same article

Summary:

1. The FTC received complaints saying that in the broadcasted announcements and on the flyers handed out at the wedding gown show, Tainan Bao Mei Wedding Photography Co., Ltd. and 7 other similar businesses (hereinafter referred to as the 8 wedding photography businesses) in Tainan claimed that "the first wedding photography show at the grand opening of Durban Department Store...free tablet personal computers for those reserving wedding photography service..." and "free tablet personal computers every day for people reserving wedding photography service; 100 tablet personal computers to be given away at the show." With the above statements, false advertising was suspected.
2. Findings of the FTC after investigation:
   The 8 wedding photography businesses claimed that they delegated A to organize the wedding photography show and make advertising arrangements, including making the aforesaid claim through announcements and flyers. However, after people made their reservations and paid for the deposit, they were told the wedding gowns they had reserved were not in the designated category by the organizer and they were therefore not qualified for the free tablet personal computer. Both A and the 8 wedding photography businesses were unable to prove they had given away any tablet personal computer at the show; in other words, not one single tablet computer was given away throughout the show. A provided a "record of negotiation for tablet personal computer purchases" from 100 Richman Information City Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 100 Richman Ltd.) to prove that A had indeed contacted 100 Richman Ltd. about purchasing tablet personal computers after the show. Apparently, when designing the advertising, A was perfectly aware of the unlikelihood of giving away free tablet personal computers at the time of the sale at the show. Therefore, it was a false advertisement.
3. Grounds for disposition:
   (1) The 8 wedding photography businesses contested that they had delegated A to make the advertising arrangements and were not aware of any of the advertising contents. However, as the delegators, they had the responsibility to manage and supervise the advertisements and printed matters produced by the delegatee. Therefore, the 8 wedding photography businesses were equally responsible for the intentional misconduct of the delegatee. As a professional service provider, A falls under the definition category of "enterprise" set forth in Subparagraph 4, Article 2 of the Fair Trade Law. Since A was responsible for the advertising, had the right to decide contents, financed the advertising, and participated throughout the entire activity, it could not be regarded an advertising agent which normally would only be responsible for the planning work and would not be as involved. Hence, both A and the 8 wedding photography businesses were the advertisers in this case.
   (2) A and the 8 wedding photography businesses never gave away any tablet personal computer during the period of time the show was held. The plan to purchase tablet personal computers after the show made it obvious that they were aware of the impossibility of giving away any tablet personal computer when the advertisements were produced. Therefore, their conduct was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to content of service in violation of Paragraph 3 of Article 21 of the Fair Trade Law and Paragraph 1 of the same article was applicable mutatis mutandis. Acting according to the first section of Paragraph 1 of Article 41 of the same Law, the FTC ordered the said parties to immediately cease their unlawful acts and also imposed an administrative fine of NT$50,000 on A and each of the 8 wedding photography businesses.

Appendix:
Tainan Bao Mei Wedding Photography Co., Ltd.'s Uniform Invoice Number: 16971451
Luo Man Fei Wedding Photography's Uniform Invoice Number: 62911577
Fa Le Qi (transliteration) Co., Ltd.'s Uniform Invoice Number: 25009416
Dang Dai Cheng Pin Styling and Photography's Uniform Invoice Number: 13593245
Zhe Ai Wedding Photography Enterprise Co., Ltd.'s Uniform Invoice Number: 28129323
Sheng Luo Lan Wedding Photography's Uniform Invoice Number: 21607101
Kai Yi Wedding Photography Co., Ltd.'s Uniform Invoice Number: 25167630
Yu Chen (transliteration) Photography Co., Ltd.'s Uniform Invoice Number: 53479754

Summarized by: Su, Min-Huang; Supervised by: Yang, Hsiu-Yun