多層次傳銷之定義規定於公平交易法第八條，其中參加人「給付一定代價」為多層次傳銷成立之必要條件，惟若參加人「不給付一定代價」即可參加銷售組織時，是否即非公平法所稱之多層次傳銷？本研究就該法律要件應否置於「多層次傳銷」定義中，以各國法律規定情形進行法理面探討與比較，並自管理者之個案適用爭議及政策考量進一步研析，另為暸解多層次傳銷市場實際運作情形，以行政院公平交易委員會92年多層次傳銷經營概況調查結果進行實證分析，以得知實務面與理論面之差異o實證結果發現，「給付一定代價」之加入條件對多層次傳銷事業營 業額並無顯著的影響，表示若將該要件刪除，實務上對傳銷事業的營業額並不會產生較為有利或不利作用，故該要件之保留或刪除，可逕由法理及管理層面考量，則可推知修法後若將之刪除在實務上應不會造成過大衝擊，且可杜絕個案適用上之爭議，並符合各國相關規範及未來「多層次傳銷管理法」草案修正之潮流。最後，本文並提出刪除該要件之相關配套措施，以為執法機關之參考。

According to the statutory definition (Article 8 of the Fair Trade Act), “paying a certain cost” is one of the constituent elements of multi-level marketing. However, if a similar scheme accepts participants “without paying a certain cost,” should this kind of marketing program be regulated as multi-level marketing in the same way as those so defined in the Fair Trade Act? This artic1e will inquire into this issue, and explore and compare legal definitions in various foreign countries. Furthermore, the issue will be analyzed in light of the practical legal disputes and public policy considerations. In order to understand the difference that this issue would make in the real world, this article further conducts an empirical analysis that is based on the data collected in a survey on multi-level marketing operations in Taiwan by the Fair Trade Commission in 2003. The results of the study show that “paying a certain cost” has no significant effect on the performance of multi-level marketing businesses. It indicates that deleting the element from the statutory definition would not have a strong impact on the operation of multi­level marketing. Omitting this element can also eliminate the legal disputes on statutory interpretation and fit in with the tide of most foreign legislation and the draft of the “Multi­level Marketing Act.” This article will in addition suggest administrative measures that are ancillary to the deletion of this element.