Heyford International Ltd.

Case:

Heyford International Ltd. violated the Fair Trade Law for posting false concert stage arrangement for "2NE1 Global Tour New Revolution Concert"

Key Word(s):

False advertising, concert, advertiser

Reference:

Fair Trade Commission Decision of July 10, 2013 (the 1131st Commissioners' Meeting); Disposition Kung Ch'u Tzu No. 102106

Industry:

Other Personal Services Activities Not Elsewhere Classified (9690)

Relevant Law(s):

Paragraph 3 of Article 21 of the Fair Trade Law and Paragraph 1 of the same article applicable mutatis mutandis

Summary:

1. The FTC received complaints from private citizens that Heyford International Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Heyford International) began at 10:58 in the morning of October 28 to sell tickets for the "2NE1 Global Tour New Evolution Concert" (hereinafter referred to as 2NE1) to be held at Taipei Arena on November 16, 2012. The layout of the venue put up at ticketing outlets and the one posted on Facebook indicated the stage extended all the way to Rock and Roll C and D Sections, but as a matter of fact the stage did not reach C and D Sections and the locations of A and B Sections were also different when the concert actually took place. The content of the advertisement was obviously false.
2. Findings of the FTC after investigation:
   

   Heyford International commissioned Top Increasing Technology Co., Ltd. was to build the 2NE1 concert stage according to the design provided by the Korean performing group. At the same time, Heyford International signed a contract with ERA Communications Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ERA Communications) to have ERA Communications in charge of ticketing for the concert. Heyford International contested that the inconsistency between the posted stage arrangement and the actual design had been the result of the last-minute adjustments made after the performing group's arrival four days before the concert in order to meet fire regulations. However, the FTC's investigation revealed that the tickets were sold between October 28 and November 16, 2012 but Heyford International put forth a request to Taipei Rapid Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as TRTC) on November 8, 2012 for the adjustment of the distance between the main stage and the Rock and Roll Sections according to the technical plans provided by TRTC. Therefore, Heyford International had been aware of the stage arrangement change in advance.

3. Grounds for disposition:
   

   (1)

   The prices of the concert tickets for different sections are normally determined in accordance with the distance from the stage and the viewing angle of the seats, and the distance is often an important consideration for consumers when the decisions of purchasing tickets is made. Therefore, advertisers have the obligation to provide such information in the said advertisements honestly so that consumers can make decisions accordingly.

   (2)

   The first concert venue layout posted by Heyford International on October 26, 2012 showed the stage reaching Rock and Roll A and B Sections. On October 28, 2012, a second layout was posted on Facebook and it was emphasized that the 2NE1 concert stage had been extended to Rock and Roll C and D Sections (the schematic appeared smaller because it was drawn with computer software). The two layouts gave the impression that the stage would reach Rock and Roll A and B Sections and even C and D Sections. However, on the day of the concert, the stage was at least seven meters from A and B Sections. In other words, the first layout posted was already significantly different from the actual condition, yet Heyford International again emphasized the stage had been extended to C and D Sections although the computer-drawn schematic was too small to show this clearly. The first posting was already likely to mislead consumers and Heyford International also admitted the mistake of claiming the stage had been extended to C and D Sections and released a statement of apology on Facebook on November 23. Nevertheless, as the advertiser, Heyford International never revised the advertisements during the advertising period to inform consumers of the difference. As a result, the information in the advertisements was inconsistent with the actual condition and the difference was difficult for the general public or concerned people to accept. It could lead to wrong perceptions or decisions and thus was a false, untrue and misleading representation in violation of Paragraph 3, Article 21 of the Fair Trade Law and Paragraph 1 of the same article was applicable mutatis mutandis. The FTC therefore imposed on the company an administrative fine of NT$300,000.

Appendix:
Heyford International Ltd.'s Uniform Invoice Number: 24321143

Summarized by Lin,Yen-Kuang; Supervised by Yang,Hsiu-Yun