本文旨在探討關鍵字廣告行為與公平交易法之適用關係，我國實務及學說見解多認為關鍵字廣告可能構成不公平競爭行為，本文則認為，以公平交易法不公平競爭相關規定規範關鍵字廣告，不僅無法滿足各該規定之構成要件，反倒可能引發與促進自由競爭規定間之齟齬。在包含關鍵字廣告的廣告行為屬於言論自由保障對象之認知下，本文首先探討憲法言論自由保障廣告之契機，發現從「發話權」到「資訊接受權」的法規範典範之轉變。廣告之重要性不再繼續停留於對廣告主之營業或獲利行為的偏重，而應從消費者端藉由廣告接受必要資訊、促使其作出最為合理的消費決定之觀點出發。於此認知下，向來基於商標權人就其商標廣告功能應享有獨占權利，並以所謂初始興趣混淆作為禁止關鍵字廣告行為之主張，就必須重新省思其理論的正確性。此外，本文並認為，針對關鍵字廣告要求設置類似著作權法第90條之8之通知／移除規範及免責機制，不僅欠缺法理基礎及事實，且將令網路搜尋服務者扮演言論事前審查者之角色，違背憲法保障廣告之言論自由的宗旨，更可能因此僭越立法者的立法權限，引發不必要的權力分立爭議。

This article aims to explore the relationship between keyword advertising and the application of the Fair Trade Act. Most of Taiwan’s practice and theoretical opinions believe that keyword advertising may constitute unfair competition. This article believes that the relevant provisions of the Fair Trade Act, when used to regulate keyword advertising, will not only fails to meet the constituent elements of the regulations, but may lead to discrepancies with the regulations for promoting free competition. Under the recognition that advertising behaviors containing keyword advertisements belong to the objects of freedom of speech protection, this article first explores the opportunity of constitutional freedom of speech protection of advertisements, and discovers the transformation of legal norms from the “right to speak” to the “right to receive information”. The importance of advertising no longer stays in the emphasis on advertisers’ business or profit-making behaviors, but from the point of view that consumers receive the necessary information through advertising and prompt them to make the most reasonable consumption decisions. With this recognition, based on the facts that the trademark owner should have exclusive rights with respect to its trademark advertising function, and the so-called initial interest confusion is the proposition of prohibiting keyword advertising, it is necessary to reconsider the correctness of its theory. In addition, this article also believes that setting up a notice/take down standard and exemption mechanism similar to Article 90-8 of the Copyright Act for keyword advertising requirements not only lacks legal basis and facts, but also makes online search service providers act as pre-examiners of speech. The role, contrary to the constitutional purpose of protecting the freedom of speech in advertising, is more likely to violate the legislator’s legislative authority and cause unnecessary disputes over the separation of powers.