"Even If 'Knockoff' and 'Fake' Were Used"... Prosecutors: "Subjective Opinions Are Not Defamation"

Cosmetics manufacturer CEO accused of 'defaming competitor's cosmetics with mosaic editing' cleared of charges
The 'knockoff' expression in the video falls within the realm of personal commentary, not a definitive statement of fact

A female cosmetics manufacturer CEO in her 30s, who had been under police investigation on charges of obstructing business and defamation by posting online a video containing expressions to the effect that a competitor's cosmetics were fake, has received a decision of no charges.

According to the legal community on the 2nd, the Ansan Branch of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office issued a non-indictment decision in May for Ms. A, a CEO of a skincare business, who had been referred on charges of violating the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (defamation) and obstruction of business.

While running a skincare business and manufacturing and selling functional cosmetics containing skin-regenerating ingredients, Ms. A was accused of using expressions such as 'knockoff' and 'fake' while posting a video applying Company B's cosmetics to her face in order to promote her own products.

Company B, which produces the products appearing in the video, sued Ms. A, claiming that the post branded its products as imitations and lowered its brand value, and that a series of customer inquiries about whether the products were counterfeit disrupted its normal guidance operations.

However, Ms. A argued, "I merely posted an edited version with the intention of warning consumers that the distribution of similar products is frequent, so please be careful, and I had no purpose of disparaging a specific corporation or spreading false information."

She also emphasized, "The cosmetics I distribute were released earlier than Company B's products, and products with comparable ingredients and formulations are being supplied in large quantities in the market, so it was not an act of pinpointing a specific brand."

The police who conducted the investigation referred the case to the prosecution, and the prosecution, after reviewing the case, accepted Ms. A's argument.

The prosecution interpreted that words such as 'knockoff' and 'fake' written in the post were more likely to correspond to subjective personal opinions or impressionistic commentary about the products rather than a definitive statement of fact.

In addition, considering that most of the products exposed on the video screen were blurrily mosaic-processed, it found it difficult to conclude that fake news was stated targeting a specific brand.

Furthermore, it judged that unless the spreading of false facts was proven, the charge of obstruction of business by deception was also difficult to satisfy the constituent elements, and ultimately issued a non-indictment decision.

Park Seong-cheol, attorney of Daeryun LLC representing Ms. A, explained, "Defamation under the Information and Communications Network Act requires stating false facts targeting a specific person to damage their reputation, and obstruction of business is also established only when it is recognized that the business was obstructed by deception or spreading of false facts," adding, "In this case, both charges were not recognized as the fact that the expression in the post fell within the realm of opinion or evaluation and that it was difficult to see it as referring to a specific company were accepted."

Reporter Boo Seok-woo boo@kyeonggi.com

[Read the full article]
"Even If 'Knockoff' and 'Fake' Were Used"... Prosecutors: "Subjective Opinions Are Not Defamation" (Go to link)