Liberty Times Net 2026/10/2
[Reporter Ou Yu-hsiang / Taipei] In 2022, the FTC(Fair Trade Commission) approved PX Mart’s acquisition of RT-Mart subject to specific conditions. However, in 2024, the FTC determined that PX Mart had violated the condition prohibiting a “most-favored-customer policy” and imposed a NTD20 million fine on the company. PX Mart subsequently filed an administrative lawsuit. The Taipei High Administrative Court accepted PX Mart’s argument and revoked the FTC’s penalty. The FTC responded today stating that the decision to penalize was made with great caution and based on sufficient evidence, adding that the next commission meeting will decide whether to lodge an appeal.
In 2022, the FTC cleared PX Mart’s merger with RT-Mart subject to commitments, including a prohibition on most-favored-customer practices. Specifically, PX Mart was restricted from using product pricing from other retail channels as a basis for bargaining or demanding more favorable or equal terms. This condition served as a “core component” of the FTC’s clearance decision, and PX Mart committed to complying with it at the time.
However, after an investigation in 2024, the FTC concluded that PX Mart continued to use discount rates from competing channels as conditions for price adjustments. PX Mart allegedly demanded proportional price cuts from suppliers and even specified liquidated damages in certain cases. The FTC deemed this equivalent to forcing upstream suppliers to bear the costs and risks of downstream retail competition, resulting in the heavy fine of NTD20 million. Following PX Mart’s administrative suit, the court found PX Mart’s arguments convincing and set aside the sanction.
The FTC responded today that the decision on whether to appeal will be resolved during its commission meeting. Unless unforeseen circumstances arise, commission meetings are typically held every Wednesday, and a decision will be reached as quickly as possible. The FTC noted that it will proceed according to the court judgment and the commission’s resolution; if the court’s ruling leaves room for reconsideration, an appeal may be filed. Alternatively, if no appeal is filed, the FTC may address the issues highlighted in the ruling, conduct supplementary investigations, and issue a new administrative disposition.
The FTC further explained that if the judgment indicates certain matters were insufficiently investigated or require strengthening, the FTC may reconsider issuing a new penalty after conducting further investigation and clarification. The official FTC spokesperson emphasized that when the original sanction was made, all evidence was thoroughly verified and the decision was weighed carefully. The FTC will now clarify which specific details or legal interpretations differed in the court’s view.
Historically, when the FTC imposes penalties under the Fair Trade Act, targeted enterprises frequently file administrative lawsuits. This process is time-consuming, delays fine collections, and carries the risk of defeat. However, statistical data shows that over the past 25 years, the FTC has sanctioned 5,597 enterprises with an administrative decision uphold rate of 94.9%. Furthermore, every administrative lawsuit helps reinforce enforcement outcomes: a win confirms court support for the FTC’s legal interpretations, investigative methodology, and evaluation of evidence, while a loss offers key lessons to refine future enforcement actions.