Far Eastern Ai Mai Co., Ltd.

Supreme Administrative Court (2017)

Case:

Supreme Administrative Court overruled the appeal of the administrative litigation filed by Far Eastern regarding its violation of the Fair Trade Law

Keyword(s):

Advertising, misleading

Reference:

Supreme Administrative Court Judgment (2017) Pan Tzu No. 299

Industry:

Department Stores (4712)

Relevant Law(s):

Article 21(1) of the Fair Trade Law

Summary:

1. Earlier, the appellee the Fair Trade Commission (hereinafter referred to as FTC) received complaints accusing the appellant Far Eastern Ai Mai Co., Ltd., the enterprise operating the A.Mart Chain, purchasing a keyword advertisement in violation of the Fair Trade Law. After an investigation, the FTC concluded that the appellant's claim of "buying from A.Mart Taiwan Online is cheaper than from Save&Safe Online" (hereinafter referred to as the advertisement in question) posted in the keyword advertisement had been a false and misleading representation with regard to content of product in violation of Article 21(1) of the Fair Trade Law and, therefore, imposed on it an administrative fine of NT$500,000. The appellant found the sanction unacceptable and filed an administrative litigation that was later overruled. Hence, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court.
2. The appellant purchased a keyword advertisement claiming "buying from A.Mart Taiwan Online is cheaper than from Save&Safe Online." However, a comparison of the prices of the Sunflower Lemon Sandwich Cookies Bucket, Chung Hsiang Family Package Natural Series Seaweed Soda Crackers, Sensodyne Complete Protection Toothpaste, Weilih Yi Du Zan Beef Noodles, Philips micro-computer-controlled 4-person Rice Cooker and Magic Amah Lemon-flavored Bathroom Cleaner Spray, for example, revealed that they were cheaper at the Save&Safe Online Store. The FTC therefore concluded it was not necessarily cheaper to buy from A.Mart Taiwan Online than from Save&Safe Online and made the decision accordingly. In the advertisement in question, the appellant posted the claim of "buying from A.Mart Taiwan Online is cheaper than from Save&Safe Online" without presenting any concrete evidences and comparison standards. The practice could cause consumers to have the misunderstanding that shopping with A.Mart Taiwan Online would be cheaper than buying from Save&Safe Online and the trading order on the marketplace would be therefore affected. It was a false and misleading representation with regard to products and could affect transaction decisions. The FTC's original decision of the appellant having violated Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Law was consistent with the aforesaid regulation.
3. Based on the above facts, the decision that sustained the original sanction made by the FTC and overrule the appellant's administrative litigation over the ruling made at the first instance was legitimate. The appellant's accusation that the original decision was in violation of related regulations and to be revoked was groundless and therefore had to be rejected.