The Supreme Administrative Court recently rendered a final judgment regarding a case involving the Consumer Protection Act.A movie theater was reported by a member of the public for completely prohibiting customers from bringing in outside food and was subsequently inspected by the New Taipei City Government. Although the business operator had already removed the on-site notices and switched to oral reminders for implementation, it was still ruled to be in violation, was fined NT$20,000, and was ordered to make immediate corrections. The movie theater, dissatisfied with the administrative penalty, filed a lawsuit. After losing the first trial, it filed an appeal; however, the court ultimately dismissed the appeal, and the judgment was finalized.
According to the explanation provided by the New Taipei City Government, the movie theater had initially posted notices stating “No Outside Food Allowed” in the screening rooms and at the counter.
During two on-site inspections conducted by city government personnel, such signage was discovered, and they immediately demanded removal and improvements.
Unexpectedly, the government later received further reports from the public. Although the on-site notices were no longer present, employees were still verbally informing customers that they were not allowed to bring in outside food.
The court pointed out that according to Announcement No. Xin-Ying-San-Zi-0990001533Z issued by the Government Information Office of the Executive Yuan on February 8, 2010 (Year 99 of the Republic of China), movie theater operators may not include clauses prohibiting the bringing of outside food in standard form contracts.
The main purpose of this regulation is to prevent operators from prohibiting outside food while simultaneously selling the same food within the venue at prices higher than market rate, thereby forcing consumers to purchase without any real choice.
In the present case, although the movie theater had complied with the competent authority’s request to remove the written notice of “No Outside Food Allowed,”
After the notice was removed, employees still conveyed the same restriction to consumers orally.
The court held that, even though the operator no longer used written notices, the act of orally informing customers constituted a substantive prohibition on bringing outside food into the venue, which violated the spirit of the Executive Yuan’s announcement and Article 32, Paragraph 1 of the New Taipei City Consumer Protection Autonomy Ordinance.
Therefore, the administrative penalty was not improper, and the court ultimately dismissed the appeal and upheld the original disposition.
