2024年公平交易法執法之回顧與展望

本文之目的，在於針對2024年公平交易法之重要發展進行回顧及評析。由於法律規範的內容，必須透過案例的具體事實才得以展現，藉由實務案例分析方能掌握我國競爭法之真正樣貌為何。藉此方能有效觀察主管機關及法院就執法之立場是否具有一致性。
本年度就聯合行為之執法，在工會與公會構成事業的執法標準上採用了較為明確的執法標準。但在事業團體案件中，以「行為主體」與「參與成員」之概念區別併同處罰規定之適用，與以往執法觀點有所不同。此一區別之意義，不無疑問。在結合管制，大富案顯示出「經常共同經營」並不以損益共同契約作為前提之立場轉變。在燁聯唐榮併購案中，在市場界定有不同發展，但在限制競爭效果等分析，則顯得較為難以自圓其說。在萊爾富結合未申報案中，則可以看到事業集團內部的結合申報義務分配，存在著一些疑義。在相對市場優勢地位濫用的執法，儘管近年有不少批判意見，但行政法院似乎並無否定此種執法立場之意。最後，有關社群網站用戶所為之不實廣告，可以看到公平會首次針對作為團購事業之自然人社群網站用戶進行裁罰，本文中同時也藉此展望不構成廣告主之一般薦證者之責任。

This article examines several significant Fair Trade Act cases from 2024, analyzing recent developments from the perspectives of the Taiwan Fair Trade Commission (TFTC) and the courts.
With regard to enforcement actions, the article first focuses on the TFTC’s approach to cartel behavior. It finds that the TFTC adopted different methods to define labor unions and trade associations as subjects under the Fair Trade Act. In certain cases involving trade associations, the TFTC introduced a unique yet unfamiliar concept—"joiner of a cartel"—to identify entities that were not cartel initiators but later aligned themselves with the cartel's conduct. However, whether this interpretation is appropriate for typical cartel cases remains uncertain.
The article also discusses three merger control cases, noting that the TFTC has shifted its stance on the interpretation of the phrase“operates jointly with another enterprise on a regular basis”under Article 10(1)(d), and has adopted a“submarket”approach in defining the stainless steel market. Furthermore, despite academic criticism and concerns over the necessity of regulating superior market power, the administrative court appears to support the TFTC’s decision to fine a retailer for unreasonably demanding additional contribution fees.
Finally, the article analyzes the TFTC’s reasoning in a precedent-setting case where it defined a social networking service (SNS) user as an undertaking in a misleading advertising case.