On February 8, 2012, the Taiwan Fair Trade Commission (TFTC) found that a total of 51 bottled liquid petroleum gas (LPG) suppliers located in Chia-yi City (collectively "Suppliers") had violated the cartel prohibition under the Fair Trade Act ("FTA") for increasing the retail price of LPG products simultaneously, which had affected competition in Chia-yi City's LPG market. Consequently, the TFTC imposed fines ranging from NT$4 million to NT$50,000 on each Supplier. The fines imposed by the TFTC in the case is NT$10.15 million in total.

The investigation was prompted by customers' complaints to the TFTC saying that the Suppliers suddenly raised the LPG price from NT$750 per bottle to NT$840 per bottle in January 2011. After investigation, the TFTC found that the price hike was initiated by a Supplier named Long Hong, which published its own new pricing plan in a local newspaper. In Long Hong's announcement, the price raise would come into effect three days after the announcement. From the TFTC's point of view, this grace period was in fact a signal to the other Suppliers to plan their own price raise, because all the other Suppliers may during the grace period exchange information, agree on the price raise increment and then finalize the price. Afterward, according to the TFTC's findings, Long Hung called other Suppliers to confirm their price increase, and the Suppliers also agreed not to transact with each other's customers, which solidified the conspiracy.

In the TFTC's opinion, Long Hung's public announcement on the price raise was a "public invitation" to the other Suppliers and can be interpreted as a "facilitator" to the conspiracy. While publicly disclosing the price increase should be detrimental to its own interest from a reasonably economic perspective, Long Hung would not have done so unless the Suppliers had all agreed to the price raise. Meanwhile, since no clear evidence pointed to increased material cost for LPG products, the Suppliers' simultaneous price raise to NT$840 per bottle must be the outcome of an instance of illegal price-fixing.

Given that the purchasing cost for LPG products in February 2011 was in fact lower than that in the previous month, the Suppliers had gained improper profits for their price raise in February 2011. Consequently, the TFTC determined to impose fines totaling NT$10.15 million on the Suppliers. The TFTC's fine on each Supplier ranged from NT$4 million to NT$50,000 depending on each Supplier's scale of operation and motive for the violation. The TFTC also warned in its newsletter that all enterprises should refrain from engaging in price-fixing by disclosing their own prices in the public domain, or the TFTC will look into the case to see whether any conspiracy exists.

The case is noteworthy for two reasons. First of all, the TFTC cited the "facilitation theory" to conclude the existence of an instance of price-fixing despite no discovery of any meeting or written agreement. Secondly, there is a total of 50 enterprises penalized in the single decision, which is rare. In any event, the TFTC's adoption of the facilitation theory will be scrutinized by the court if any penalized enterprise disagrees with the TFTC's decision.