Rapid digital expansion is driving Asia’s regulators to craft new e-commerce frameworks
Rapidly evolving regulatory oversight in China e-commerce market
China’s e-commerce market is the world’s largest and most dynamic, now rapidly evolving to extend beyond traditional marketplaces to include third-party platforms such as Tmall and JD.com, brand-owned stores, and fast-growing domains of social and livestream commerce on platforms like Douyin (TikTok) and Xiaohongshu, often facilitated through mini-programs.
Jeanette Wang
Partner
Shihui Partners
Shanghai
Tel: +86 21 2043 7577
Email: wangjy@shihuilaw.com
Navigating compliance in this environment is multi-faceted, beginning with obtaining market access, governed by a range of licensing and registration requirements. These include:
-
- Market entity registration with the State Administration for Market Regulation, which distinguishes between self-operated sellers and platform operators;
- ICP filing with the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) for any website providing free online information services of an informational or public disclosure nature;
- Public Security Bureau filing for internet access for all websites; and
- Value-Added Telecoms Services licences issued by the MIIT, such as the ICP licence (B25) for commercial internet information services, or the EDI licence (B21) for third-party online marketplace and transaction processing operations.
Next, stringent consumer protection and advertising regulations mandate transparency and fairness across promotions, pricing and return policies. Key related domains encompass competition law, cross-border payment settlements, IP and sector-specific products, as well as intricate logistics, customs and tax obligations, particularly involving cross-border trade.
Third, data security regulations – the Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) and Cybersecurity Law (CSL), under the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC), along with algorithmic recommendation rules – impose strict data handling and personalised content obligations.
These developments signal the evolution of China’s e-commerce governance from a growth-first approach to a targeted regulatory model emphasising platform accountability and consumer protection.
Consumer rights protection
China’s consumer rights protection regime has developed into a comprehensive and sophisticated system responding to the country’s rapidly expanding digital economy.
Anchored in the Consumer Rights Protection Law, E-Commerce Law, Adver-tising Law and related regulations, the framework ensures access to safe, high-quality goods, refund pathways, clear complaint handling mechanisms, and protection against deceptive or misleading practices.
These guarantees extend across traditional retail and digital marketplaces, and operators should align with core obligations including:
-
- Transparency and accuracy. Platforms and merchants must provide accurate, complete and accessible product and seller information. Merchants are prohibited from publishing false advertising, concealing product defects, or adopting misleading sales tactics. E-commerce platforms also have a duty to monitor and address merchant misconduct, maintain content review mechanisms and merchant traceability systems, and take necessary remediation actions.
- Fair pricing and freedom of choice. Tie-in purchases cannot be pre-selected, and any personalised pricing based on user profiling must be disclosed with a “non-targeted” alternative option provided. Ranking algorithms in search results and product displays must clearly label paid placements and sponsored adjustments.
- Return and refund policy. Online retailers are subject to the mandatory “seven-day no-reason return” policy. Merchants must honour refund requests within statutory timeframes unless exceptions apply. Merchants and platforms are required to establish clear return instructions, maintain logistics co-ordination processes, and ensure timely refund processing.
- Increasing supervision on livestream e-commerce. Paid promotional content must be clearly labelled. Influencers, livestream hosts and key opinion leaders may also bear joint liability for unsubstantiated claims. This addresses a growing enforcement focus on livestreaming e-commerce.
Competition and pricing controls
To address competition challenges, China is strengthening its regulatory framework for competition and pricing, with a sharpened focus on algorithmic fairness, pricing autonomy and platform accountability.
Recent revisions on the Anti-Unfair Competition Law (AUCL), effective since 15 October 2025, aim to establish a transparent, predictable market environment, strengthening liability for digital competition abuse, introducing executive accountability, and reinforcing brand protection and data integrity standards.
The revised AUCL introduces critical “anti-involution” measures, including explicitly prohibiting platforms from coercing merchants to sell below cost, targeting harmful price wars often initiated by major platforms. They also restrict large enterprises from abusing their advantageous position to deliberately delay payments and impose other unreasonable terms on SMEs, requiring platforms to establish and publicly disclose clear internal fair competition rules.
Concurrently, the draft Internet Platform Price Behaviour Rules provide granular guidance on emphasising transparency in all pricing and promotional activities. Enforcement has intensified, with authorities actively prosecuting violations like price fraud, trademark infringement, and fake transactions.
The new rules create specific obligations for all market participants in three key areas:
-
- Pricing autonomy. Platforms are forbidden from using traffic restrictions or other punitive measures to force merchants into promotions or price cuts.
- Transparency. Merchants must clearly display all costs, promotional rules and the basis for any differential pricing.
- Prohibited practices. Fake transactions, fabricated reviews and “click farming” are strictly prohibited, as is algorithmic “big data killing” (price discrimination based on user profiles).
Privacy and cross-border transfer
Yun Bi
Partner
Shihui Partners
Beijing
Tel: +86 10 8514 7566
Email: biy@shihuilaw.com
China’s data protection framework, anchored by the CSL and complemented by the PIPL and Data Security Law, imposes stringent requirements for data processing, storage and transfer, with a dedicated focus on personal information security.
The PIPL serves as the primary legislation for personal data protection. Given its extraterritorial reach, the law applies not only to domestic entities but also those outside the country processing the personal information of individuals within China.
To comply with the PIPL, operators must adhere to the key obligations, namely:
-
- Consent. Explicit consent must be obtained from users prior to any collection, processing and transfer of their personal information. Operators must provide clear information regarding the purpose, method and scope of processing, and the rights and mechanisms available to data subjects, as stipulated in the privacy policy.
- Separate consent. In addition to general consent, if sensitive personal information is involved during the data processing, separate consent is required. Additionally, separate consent is also required for provision of personal information to third parties, public disclosure of personal information, cross-border transfer of personal data, and automated decision-making involving user profiling.
- Cross-border data transfer. To transfer personal information outside China, network operators shall satisfy one of three pre-requisites:
- pass a CAC security assessment;
- obtain certification from a CAC-accredited institution; or
- sign a standard contract that follows the CAC template with overseas recipient. The applicable path depends on several factors including the type of data; whether the data processor qualifies as a critical information infrastructure operator; and the data volume. These criteria determine eligibility for each mechanism.
Algorithms and AI
As AI technologies are increasingly integrated into e-commerce – including personalised recommendations, virtual try-ons and AI-generated marketing content – China has issued a series of sector-wide rules that impose transparency, fairness, safety and accountability obligations on providers and operators of algorithmic and generative-AI systems.
Key measures including the 2022 Algorithmic Recommendation Provisions, which require personalisation algorithm providers to maintain transparency, avoid discriminatory outcomes, and offer users opt out options.
In 2023, the Generative-AI Interim Measures expanded oversight to large-scale content-generating models, introducing requirements for lawful training data, output quality control, bias mitigation, and user complaint mechanisms.
The Minor Network Protection Regulation further reinforces content moderation and protection for users under 18. E-commerce businesses must prioritise these compliance obligations when deploying algorithms and customer-facing AI solutions.
Tax and reporting reforms
China also strengthened tax oversight for online transactions in 2025, increasing scrutiny of e-commerce platforms, digital service providers and cross-border sellers.
Under recent State Council and State Taxation Administration (STA) notices, internet platforms (including overseas platforms with users or transactions in China) are required to assume broader tax reporting, data collection and withholding duties. These measures aim to standardise digital economy tax compliance, improve transaction visibility, and align with global platform-based tax enforcement trends.
The new rules require platforms to collect and submit merchant identity and income information, facilitate tax registration, and in some cases withhold and remit taxes on behalf of merchants. Platforms are also expected to upgrade data systems, revise onboarding procedures, and implement ongoing monitoring to ensure compliance.
For multinational and non-resident operators, these measures introduce a shift towards the “platform as tax administrator” model, which is applicable even to entities with no physical presence in China that enable China-linked transactions.
Key takeaways
To prepare for heightened tax and regulatory reporting expectations ahead, companies are advised to begin evaluating potential exposure and reviewing contractual terms with merchants and service providers.
Shihui Partners
8th Floor, Aurora International Building
No. 99 Fucheng Road, Pudong New Area,
Shanghai, 200120, China
Tel: +86 21 2043 7500
Email: shanghai@shihuilaw.com
www.shihuilaw.com
Quick commerce and FDI in India
Quick commerce has grown exponentially in the past few years to become one of the most striking growth stories in India’s digital economy, transforming how consumers access everyday essentials across groceries, fast-moving consumer goods and personal care items. Characterised by deliveries within 10 to 30 minutes of an online order, quick commerce has redefined the boundaries of e-commerce and logistics, bringing purchases once made at kiranas, or mom and pop stores, into the digital fold.
Raghubir Menon
Partner
Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co
Mumbai
Tel: +91 99 1099 8321
Email: raghubir.menon@amsshardul.com
The sector’s momentum has since been driven by the growing use of smartphones, the rapid adoption of digital payment systems, and a deep behavioural shift towards convenience and instant fulfilment. The Indian quick commerce market, valued at about USD3.34 billion in 2024, is projected to reach USD9.95 billion by 2029, reflecting how rapidly instant delivery has moved from novelty to necessity in urban life.
The pace of this growth has raised nuanced regulatory and policy challenges. Much of the estimated USD6 billion of foreign direct investment (FDI) that has flowed into leading platforms such as Blinkit, Instamart and Zepto comes from offshore investors, bringing the sector firmly within the ambit of India’s FDI and e-commerce policy framework. The framework, shaped by concerns about protecting small domestic traders and kirana networks from large organised players, now finds itself tested by a business model that sits at the crossroads of retail, technology and logistics.
This article examines how India’s FDI and e-commerce laws engage with the emerging quick commerce sector and reflects on the accompanying opportunities and compliance challenges.
Regulatory landscape
Ekta Gupta
Partner
Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co
Mumbai
Tel: +91 98 7179 0537
Email: ekta.gupta@amsshardul.com
The Consolidated Foreign Direct Investment Policy, 2020, read with the Foreign Exchange Management (Non-debt Instruments) Rules, 2019 (collectively, the FDI laws), in relation to e-commerce, is one of the key regulatory frameworks applicable to quick commerce businesses as well.
The FDI laws draw a sharp distinction between the marketplace model (where the e-commerce platform merely facilitates transactions between sellers and customers) and the inventory-based model (where the platform itself owns or controls the goods it sells). While 100% FDI is permitted in the marketplace model of e-commerce, the inventory-based model is treated as retail trading, where FDI remains restricted.
To preserve such distinction, the FDI laws restrict marketplace entities and their group entities from selling on the marketplace platform, exercising inventory control, influencing prices or offering preferential treatment. Ancillary support services such as warehousing, logistics and payment collection are to be provided on fair and non-discriminatory terms. This structure allowed India to attract substantial FDI while protecting small retailers, enabling steady growth of the e-commerce ecosystem.
While the e-commerce conditionalities govern FDI in quick commerce, quick commerce business models often operate at the intersection of multiple sectors such as wholesale trading, logistics, technology and even food safety. Consequently, quick commerce entities are also governed by the broader spectrum of the FDI conditionalities, including wholesale trading and manufacturing, and various other sector-specific rules, such as:
-
- the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 to protect consumer interests in online transactions;
- the Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns to curb unfair trade practices and misleading advertisements; and
- norms prescribed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India on hygiene, storage and handling of food products at the “dark stores”.
Under FDI laws, entities engaged in manufacturing activities in India, whether directly or through contract manufacturing, are permitted to sell their manufactured products (including through e-commerce) without attracting the retail sector restrictions. Such an exemption has particular relevance for quick commerce operators developing private-label goods, allowing them to enter the retail segment while promoting the Indian government’s “Make in India” vision.
Together, these frameworks have not only regulated but also enabled the evolution of India’s digital retail economy, from traditional e-commerce to its ‘quicker’ and more localised counterpart. As the quick commerce industry continues to expand, its growth depends on how nimbly it can adapt its operational structures within such regulatory boundaries.
Business models
Rooha Khurshid
Senior Associate
Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co
Mumbai
Tel: +91 98 3124 9378
Email: rooha.khurshid@AMSShardul.com
Quick commerce has swept away and to an extent outperformed traditional e-commerce. With its exponential growth, quick commerce in India is no longer limited to last-minute essentials and household goods, but now offers a much wider range of products within minutes.
Key to the success of quick commerce has been the emergence of “dark stores”, which are micro-warehouses strategically located in dense urban neighbourhoods that store, pack and dispatch orders in real time. Their proximity to consumers, coupled with advances in logistics and software integration, has redefined how inventory, delivery and customer interfaces function across the supply and value chains.
In addition, the technology and software stack of quick commerce are equally critical. Through synchronised data flows, they enable instant co-ordination between sellers, delivery partners, warehouses and consumers, creating a seamless cycle of order management, stock visibility and fulfilment. In effect, quick commerce integrates every operational limb of traditional e-commerce into a single, continuously updating system.
However, this very integration blurs the line between facilitation and control, reopening longstanding regulatory questions under India’s foreign investment regime. To meet rapid-delivery expectations, operators need granular visibility and oversight over inventory held in dark stores. Similarly, tools such as real-time discounting or dynamic pricing, although algorithmic suggestions, risk being viewed as a pricing influence.
From a regulatory perspective, quick commerce players that are Indian-owned and controlled companies (IOCCs) can maintain their own inventory of goods and control other platform-related operational matters. This is because, on account of being an IOCC, the FDI restrictions on e-commerce, including the restriction on engaging in the inventory model of e-commerce, do not apply to such businesses.
Conversely, quick commerce models involving foreign-owned or controlled companies (FOCCs) typically see the FOCC entity operate purely as an intermediary connecting buyers and sellers through their platforms without maintaining any inventory of goods or exerting any control over pricing and other platform-related operational matters.
The FOCC quick commerce platforms often diversify into allied services such as advertising, logistics, warehousing, payments and promotional campaigns (such as cashback and loyalty schemes). While such activities are technically distinct, they often feed into the same operational supply chain, requiring careful legal and operational ring-fencing to stay legally compliant.
There has been a growing use of the “manufacturing exemption” under the FDI laws. Entities engaged in manufacturing in India, either directly or through contract manufacturing arrangements, are permitted to sell their products online without triggering the e-commerce retail restrictions. Several quick commerce players have tapped into this route through private-label offerings or in-house product lines to expand margins.
Across these models, business structuring in quick commerce indicates a spectrum ranging from entities following the IOCC structures, to which the FDI laws do not apply, to entities adopting compliance safeguards within pure marketplace models. Between the two lie hybrid structures distributing technology, logistics and wholesale functions across separate entities to balance operational flexibility with legal compliance.
Compliance challenges
Srobona Ghosh
Associate
Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co
Mumbai
Tel: +91 88 0049 1493
Email: srobona.ghosh@amsshardul.com
While the structural and operational distinctions in the quick commerce models are designed to comply with India’s foreign investment and compliance framework, these measures have not entirely insulated the quick commerce sector from increasing regulatory scrutiny. As the sector scales, it continues to attract the attention of policymakers and regulatory authorities alike.
Allegations of deep discounting, preferential listing and the use of dark patterns in digital interfaces have already drawn the attention of regulators. Similarly, concerns around predatory pricing, particularly where deep-pocketed investors sustain below-cost operations, have led to discussions around the need for closer monitoring of market conduct and pricing transparency.
At the operational level as well, regulatory oversight is becoming more granular. Authorities have undertaken on-ground inspections of dark stores to verify compliance with food safety norms. The practical overlaps between inventory co-ordination, pricing visibility and algorithmic product placement have also raised interpretational challenges under the FDI laws.
Further, the constant flow of data and transactions, coupled with the reliance on dark stores and third-party delivery networks to maintain delivery timelines, has complicated the task of ensuring uniform compliance with e-commerce and consumer protection obligations. The increasing role of algorithms and automated decision-making in enhancing consumer experience introduces yet another layer of regulatory sensitivity in areas such as data protection and usage practices.
For market players, compliance is no longer confined to adherence to a single policy instrument, but has evolved into an exercise in navigating a dense web of overlapping sectoral and consumer laws. Such requirements can prove particularly cumbersome for entities with foreign investment, given the layered conditions under the FDI laws and the interpretational uncertainties that accompany them. As a result, several operators find it imperative to adopt the IOCC model as a more practical structure for ensuring regulatory comfort. It offers operational flexibility while mitigating exposure to the restrictions applicable to FOCCs.
Having said that, even within the IOCC framework, the challenge remains one of balancing operational flexibility with regulatory alignment, underscoring that no single model or rule can fully capture the evolving realities of India’s quick commerce ecosystem.
Conclusion
During the past decade, India’s FDI framework for e-commerce has evolved in line with its growing digital economy, balancing the need to safeguard local businesses with the ambition to attract global investment and technology. In many ways, such a regulatory structure has already laid the foundation for quick commerce to flourish.
The rapid rise of quick commerce has captured the attention of investors and regulators alike. As leading players prepare to tap the Indian capital markets, regulators find themselves revisiting questions first raised during the early years of e-commerce regarding market control, consumer protection and the role of foreign capital in shaping domestic retail. With trade associations increasingly flagging concerns around foreign exchange, competition and consumer protection laws, regulatory attention is only expected to deepen.
Amid the environment of enhanced regulatory scrutiny, India remains well positioned to harness the full potential of quick commerce and evolve its policy framework without compromising on safeguard concerns for the sensitive kirana stores.
Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co
Express Towers, 23rd Floor, Nariman Point
Mumbai – 400 021, India
Tel: +91 22 4933 5555
Email: raghubir.menon@amsshardul.com
www.amsshardul.com
Taiwan e-commerce law outlook
In 2025, Taiwan’s e-commerce industry has become even more vibrant due to intense competition between foreign and local players, as well as between local and cross-border platforms, alongside increasing M&A. This article provides a brief introduction to the regulatory environment for e-commerce in Taiwan to note in 2025 and 2026.
Amendments and guidelines
Ken-Ying Tseng
Partner
Lee and Li
Taipei
Tel: +886 2 2763 8000 (ext. 2179)
Email: kenying@leeandli.com
In Taiwan, the collection, processing and use of personal data are governed by the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA). Among other requirements, the PDPA mandates that data controllers must inform data subjects of matters stipulated under the act prior to collecting and processing personal data, and that such collection and processing must be for specific purposes and meet any of the legal grounds stipulated therein.
The PDPA stipulates that if a data controller, due to a violation of the PDPA, causes personal data to be stolen, leaked, altered or otherwise infringed on, the data subject must be notified after the facts have been ascertained. Therefore, the notification obligation under the act is limited to leaks caused “due to a violation of the PDPA”, and notification is only required to be made to the “data subject”, not to the competent authority. Such provisions have been criticised and the act has therefore been amended.
Meanwhile, the PDPA authorises relevant sectoral regulators to formulate separate data protection guidelines for industries under their jurisdiction, which are applicable to all data controllers within those industries.
In this regard, the competent authority for the e-commerce industry, the Ministry of Digital Affairs (MODA), promulgated the Regulations for the Security Maintenance and Management of Personal Data Files for Digital Economy-related Industries in 2023. Under the regulations, the MODA requires that, in the event of a personal data breach in the digital economy industry (including e-commerce businesses), the data collector must notify not only the affected data subjects, but also the MODA in a prescribed format within 72 hours of becoming aware of the incident.
Although the above-mentioned measures provide better protection for data subjects, the PDPA does not expressly authorise a regulator to impose such obligations on the private sector, and thus their legal effect remains subject to debate. To address this, in November 2025, the Taiwan government announced amendments to the PDPA to explicitly stipulate that, in the event of a personal data breach incident, there is an obligation to notify the affected data subjects and report to the competent authority, i.e. the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC).
These obligations apply regardless of whether the incident is due to a violation of the PDPA. The amendments have not yet become effective but, once they do, data controllers will no longer be able to delay notifying data subjects on the grounds that the cause of the incident has yet to be determined, and will be subject to administrative fines for failure to file the required data breach incident report to the competent authority.
The PDPA amendments authorise the PDPC to separately stipulate detailed regulations regarding matters such as the content, method, and time limit of notifications of data breach incidents. However, during the six-year transition period following the establishment of the commission, the Executive Yuan (executive branch of the government) may publicly announce a list of certain sectoral regulators that shall continue to enforce and implement the act jointly with the PDPC. The authors anticipate that, for the e-commerce industry, the MODA will be on such a list, and e-commerce operators will continue to be regulated by the ministry for data privacy matters during this six-year period.
While the 2025 PDPA amendments introduce the above new requirements and involve the operation of the PDPC, the commission has not been established as of November 2025, and the amendments to the act have not become effective. It is anticipated that the amendments will become effective after the PDPC is officially formed. There is no fixed schedule for the establishment of the commission, but it is expected to be formed soon.
Operators’ responsibilities
Vick Chien
Associate Partner
Lee and Li
Taipei
Tel: +886 2 2763 8000 (ext. 2214)
Email: vickchien@leeandli.com
To curb the surge in fraud cases, the Taiwan government enacted and implemented the Fraud Crime Hazard Prevention Act (FCHPA) in 2024. The FCHPA imposes different sets of obligations regarding preventive measures on relevant industries and business operators, such as telecommunications enterprises, third-party payment service providers, online advertising platform operators and e-commerce operators.
With respect to e-commerce operators, the FCHPA stipulates that when an e-commerce operator is notified by the judicial police or the competent authority in charge of the relevant business that its services are suspected of being involved in fraudulent activities, the e-commerce operator shall co-operate with the judicial police or competent authority in handling the matter, and shall suspend the provision of services to such users whose accounts are involved in the suspected fraudulent activities within a reasonable period.
In addition, e-commerce operators are required to adopt feasible technologies to retain, within a reasonable period, electronic records, documents, images, items and data obtained from user registration and identity verification procedures, as well as connection and transaction records.
This retention of records also covers other relevant information sufficient to reconstruct users and individual transactions.
As for online advertising platform operators, the FCHPA requires that, when such operators publish or push advertisements on their platforms, certain information must be disclosed in the advertisements, such as indicating that the message is an advertisement. In addition, if the advertisement is published on behalf of a client, the information of the sponsor must also be disclosed.
Furthermore, online advertising platform operators are required to establish management measures to verify the identities of clients and sponsors through digital signatures, rapid identity verification mechanisms, or other technologies or methods with equivalent security. They are also required to publish an annual fraud prevention transparency report.
It should be noted that, considering enforcement and regulatory capacity, the online advertising platform operators subject to the FCHPA are only those that “provide online advertising services within the territory of Taiwan and reach a certain scale”. The following online advertising platform operators shall be subject to the FCHPA: Meta (Facebook, Instagram and Threads), Google (Google and YouTube), Line and TikTok. These operators meet the criteria and shall comply with the relevant requirements, including appointing a local legal representative.
Restrictions on platforms
Ban on electronic cigarettes. In 2025, the Taiwan government continues to maintain strict controls on electronic cigarettes. Since 22 March 2023, the sale of electronic cigarettes via the internet has been outright banned in Taiwan. Pursuant to the Tobacco Hazards Prevention Act (THPA), no one is permitted to manufacture, import, sell (including online or in brick-and-mortar stores), supply, display or advertise electronic cigarettes and unauthorised heated-tobacco products in Taiwan.
The Ministry of Health and Welfare (MOHW) and municipal health and welfare authorities have been strictly enforcing this ban. Any content referring to electronic cigarettes on the internet is easily regarded as an advertisement of electronic cigarettes, and the relevant authority will impose fines on the website or platform that publishes such content.
Meanwhile, to prevent electronic cigarettes from being sold online under certain code names (for example, “candy” or “milk tea”), the relevant authorities require all e-commerce websites, social media, etc., to screen for these code names and block or take down the relevant content. One famous case was that during a certain period, searching for “candy” on one of the large e-commerce platforms in Taiwan yielded no results.
In furtherance of these regulatory efforts on electronic cigarettes online, the MOHW proposed amendments to the THPA, under which all websites globally would be subject to the act, and any offshore websites would be required to appoint a legal representative in Taiwan to handle compliance matters and take down any electronic cigarette content once informed or risk administrative sanctions.
Restriction on importation of meat products. Certain meat and animal products are subject to quarantine requirements and are regulated as “quarantine items”. The Act on the Prevention and Control of Infectious Animal Diseases requires e-commerce operators to take the following measures to help prevent the spread of quarantine items:
-
- place necessary warnings for the awareness campaign of animal health inspection or quarantine;
- retain the personal data of advertisers, sellers or purchasers of animal products, or provide such information regularly to the import/export animal quarantine authorities; and
- restrict access to and browsing of related web pages, or remove such pages if there are advertisements for the sale of “quarantine items”.
Since e-commerce listings are regarded as advertisements under Taiwan law, e-commerce platforms are therefore prohibited from knowingly listing any animal products that are “quarantine items” on their platforms. Should they be notified by the authorities of any such listings, they shall remove them from their platforms.
Lee and Li, Attorneys-at-Law
8F, No. 555, Sec. 4, Zhongxiao E. Rd.,
Taipei 110055, Taiwan
Tel: +886 2 2763 8000
Email: attorneys@leeandli.com
www.leeandli.com
