An Apology Won't End It Either... What Are the Corporate Marketing Risks Under the Amended Information and Communications Network Act Effective the 7th?

Yoon Kyung-won, Attorney at Daeryun LLC

Disparaging competitors by mobilizing "mom cafes," and unverified exposé-style reviews by sponsored YouTubers, are risks that have repeatedly become problematic in the marketing field. Until quite recently, such matters were settled at the level of disciplining the person in charge or posting an apology, but under the amended Information and Communications Network Act that took effect on the 7th, the premise itself has changed. Since promotional content lacking fact-checking, if judged to be false and manipulated information, can escalate into a serious legal dispute, this is a time when a legal management system is also required for corporate marketing activities.

The core regulatory target of the amended law, the 'poster,' refers to one who conducts information delivery as a business and falls above a certain scale, and the specific standards have not yet been finalized by enforcement decree. However, in light of the draft standards released by the Broadcasting, Media and Communications Commission (posting three or more times in the past three months, 100,000 or more subscribers, or a monthly average of 100,000 or more views), corporate official channels or influencers may also fall under the legal obligation subject if they meet certain requirements. If they repeatedly circulate illegal false and manipulated information, they become subject to a penalty surcharge of up to 1 billion won, and if intent to harm or a purpose of unjust profit is recognized, they may even bear punitive damages liability of up to five times the damage amount.

Rather than significantly newly establishing prohibited acts, this amended law places emphasis on concretizing the locus of responsibility in the content distribution process and the after-the-fact remedy procedure. As such, from the corporate standpoint, 'on what grounds one speaks' rather than 'what one can say' is highly likely to become the key issue in future disputes. In addition, the self-regulation trend of the platforms where content is distributed is a point practitioners should keep an eye on. If large platforms enforce operating policies conservatively in the early stage of enforcement, cases where corporate content is temporarily restricted or deleted cannot be ruled out.

Ultimately, companies must break away from the individual judgment of practitioners or reliance on outsourced businesses and establish a preemptive response system. The measures to reflect in practice right now can be summarized in three.

First, establishing a 'marketing review process' that moves up the review timing. In practice, legal counsel is often sought only after the final deliverable, such as a video or design, is produced. In this case, due to the time and sunk cost of a full revision, there are frequent cases of proceeding despite recognizing the possibility of illegality. The procedure needs to be completely overhauled so that legal review is conducted from the content planning stage and final approval is obtained with objective grounds attached.

Second, inspecting habitually used exaggerated phrasing. Separately from this amended law, this is a matter that must also be reviewed for the possibility of unfair advertising under the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising. When using expressions such as 'best in the industry' or 'first in the nation,' it is necessary to introduce an advertising review checklist that secures certified data or objective indicators in advance.

Third, strengthening the verification duty for content using generative AI. AI is merely a drafting tool, not the subject of legal responsibility. If a deliverable is posted as is without in-house fact-checking, the risk of circulating false and manipulated information is borne equally by the company as the final poster. Even when using AI in content production, one must keep in mind that detailed fact verification is still a human task.

Like global standards including the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA), Korea is also shifting its regulatory framework in the direction of enhancing the reliability of online content. In practice, disputes over comparative advertising between companies, influencer buzz, and platform reviews are highly likely to increase first. If one remains only in after-the-fact response according to past inertia, one may face unexpected judicial risk. Advancing a prior compliance system with the help of a legal expert well-versed in the Information and Communications Network Act and corporate law is the most realistic response measure.

[Read the full article]
An Apology Won't End It Either... What Are the Corporate Marketing Risks Under the Amended Information and Communications Network Act Effective the 7th? (Go to link)