Taipei: The Shilin District Court has dismissed a damages claim filed by 13 foreign nationals against a Taiwanese company allegedly linked to pager explosions in Lebanon in 2024. The court ruled that the plaintiffs did not complete the necessary legal authorization procedures.
According to Focus Taiwan, the case originated from a series of pager explosions that occurred on September 17, 2024, involving devices reportedly used by Hezbollah in Lebanon. The blasts resulted in multiple casualties, including civilian deaths, and garnered international attention. Media reports, citing anonymous U.S. and other officials, suggested the devices bore "Made in Taiwan" markings and were supposedly manufactured by Taiwan-based Gold Apollo Co. Ltd., identified as model AR-924.
However, Taiwan's Shilin District Prosecutors Office determined that Gold Apollo had never produced a pager model AR-924. The investigation revealed that the devices in question were manufactured, traded, and shipped by an international corporation, Frontier Group Entity (FGE). The presence of the Gold Apollo trademark on the pagers was attributed to a memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed in 2022 between Gold Apollo and FGE. Under this agreement, FGE paid a brand licensing fee, acquired authorization to use Gold Apollo's trademark, and committed to purchasing a specified volume of Gold Apollo products.
The prosecutors found no evidence linking Taiwanese companies or individuals to the explosions and subsequently closed the criminal investigation in November 2024. Despite the findings, 13 foreign nationals residing outside Taiwan authorized local lawyers to file a civil lawsuit for damages against Gold Apollo and sought litigation assistance.
The Shilin District Court stated that the plaintiffs did not sign the civil complaint or the litigation aid application, and their legal representatives failed to submit powers of attorney authenticated by Taiwan's overseas diplomatic offices. Taiwanese law requires that any power of attorney issued abroad must be validated by a Taiwanese overseas mission if its authenticity is questioned.
Gold Apollo contested the authenticity of the authorization documents. On November 10, 2025, the court mandated that the procedural inadequacies be rectified within 40 days. Although the ruling was delivered a week later, the plaintiffs did not provide the required authenticated documents within the deadline nor did they offer sufficient justification for the delay.
Consequently, the court concluded that both the lawsuit and the application for litigation assistance were unlawful, leading to their dismissal on January 19. The plaintiffs have the option to appeal the decision.