A highly viral YouTube video, a one-star negative review on an ordering app, and a popular post in a parenting community—starting from July 7th, South Korea's revised "Information and Communication Network Act" will establish uniform regulatory standards for all types of online content.
The original intention of the new law is to curb online rumors and defamation issues. It not only imposes high penalties and fines on platforms, but also holds corporate executives accountable for criminal offenses.
Legislation surrounding new online phenomena is at the forefront of public opinion in many countries around the world. This issue has naturally also sparked intense discussions within South Korea.
It is worth mentioning that South Korea, which has often compromised with the US on digital and economic issues in the past, did not make any concessions this time. Previously, the United States expressed its "deep concern" regarding the proposed amendment to the law, stating that the rules would impact American platforms, and criticized South Korea for setting “unnecessary barriers” in the digital arena.
The Korean 'Information and Communication Network Act' significantly raises the thresholds for civil and administrative accountability, clearly defining the subjects subject to regulation. This has broken down the regulatory boundaries between political content and everyday online comments. It not only has a significant impact on existing media but may also affect emerging media such as YouTube, live webcasts, blogs, and social networks.
The new law specifically defines the concept of “main online information producers”: individuals who have posted at least three pieces of content on online platforms such as YouTube or TikTok over the past three months, and whose subscribers exceed 100,000 or whose average monthly views during that period exceed 100,000, will be included in the key regulatory list.
If a judge determines that someone has intentionally spread false content in order to obtain “unlawful benefits” (including economic gains, expanding social or political influence, and other intangible benefits), causing harm to others, they may be fined five times the amount of the damages. If such information, which has been determined by the court to be illegal or fabricated, is repeatedly spread, a fine of up to 1 billion Korean won may also be imposed.
YouTube logo IC photo
Heavy pressure is also placed on platforms like Naver, Kakao, Google, and Meta. Platforms with over a million active users per day in the past three months must implement systems for reporting and monitoring content. Upon receiving complaints, verification must be carried out through the “Transparency Center” established under the Korea Broadcasting Communications Commission. Any platform that fails to delete content that has been identified as illegal will face corporate administrative fines. If companies ignore the Korean government’s requirements to delete such content, their CEOs may be held individually responsible, and they could face criminal prosecution.
It is worth noting that the scope of application is not limited to YouTube videos and social media posts. Malicious reviews and defamatory posts on parenting communities, food delivery apps, and online shopping platforms also fall under this standard.
Facing the upcoming new regulations, Korean local internet giants and overseas multinational platforms are accelerating the adjustment of their systems. However, they are facing a challenge: how to design the system to determine what constitutes the truth, and how to discern the subjective motives behind the content published by creators?
The mainstream South Korean search engine Naver admitted that for now, it can only tighten its rules to comply with the new law. For controversial content that is unclear or difficult to determine, all such content will have to be transferred to the South Korean Internet Self-regulatory Organization (KISO) for review. A representative of Naver stated that during the initial phase of implementation of the new law, the company will frequently encounter such procedures.
South Korea's "national communication app" KakaoTalk's operator, Kakao, will also adopt a similar approach. Due to the limitations of its system in determining the truth, Kakao is actually unable to investigate the underlying motives behind each post on its platform, nor can it independently determine complex legal facts. Therefore, it plans to request KISO to conduct an review and will actively cooperate with the organization's findings.
A person familiar with the matter said that overseas tech giants are also at a loss. Meta, a US social media company with platforms like Facebook and Instagram, is also preparing for the new law, but has not disclosed more details about its response plans.
The former Chief Justice of South Korea warned that once the state is authorized to determine what constitutes facts, online platforms will be forced to filter out any information that does not conform to official narratives.
He posted on social media, saying, "The law requires portal websites and community operators to pre-screen and delete any posts that the government deems illegal. Failure to comply will result in penalties." In order to avoid accountability, platform operators actively remove a large number of controversial content.
On the eve of the new law's implementation, a huge public opinion storm had already erupted in South Korea. Many citizens feared that this law might become a tool for the government to suppress critical opinions. Between May 26 and June 26, there were over 140,000 signatures collected on a petition on the South Korean parliament website requesting the repeal of this law.
Critics believe that the amendment fails to fully reflect the demands of the media and civil society for the establishment of mechanisms to prevent public interest reporting from being affected by negative effects. Before the implementation of this law, calls for balancing legislation emphasized that freedom of speech could be suppressed depending on political stance.
This concern is not unfounded. Social and political issues are inherently complex. Once the executive and judicial authorities have the discretion to define “false information” at will, both short-video creators and investigative media outlets will avoid sensitive topics out of concerns about litigation risks. As a result, the space for public online discussion and the media’s role in supervising public power will continue to shrink.
Some people believe that platform creators may avoid sensitive social and political topics out of concern for legal disputes. In the process of in-depth reporting, media also worry about the details of their reports being overturned and held accountable later on, which ultimately weakens the function of supervision.
South Korean media claim that if various online public discussion spaces continue to shrink due to legal risks, creators, media, and ordinary netizens will choose to remain silent out of fear of punishment. What might disappear first is not false information, but the very freedom of discussion itself.
To curb false information that harms the rights of the public and to safeguard citizens' freedom of speech, a simple choice between two options is not enough. The law must be applied equally to all people. Those who hold critical views towards power should receive stronger protection, so that democracy can thrive.
In the face of doubts, the ruling party in South Korea merely responded that it has provided guidelines for the courts to determine what constitutes fabricated information.
The United States has recently criticized the EU's Digital Services Act again, claiming that it excessively restricts freedom of expression. In April last year, the EU imposed fines of 500 million euros on Apple and 200 million euros on metaverse platform companies under this law. In December, the EU announced a fine of 120 million euros on social media platform X, owned by American entrepreneur Elon Musk, on the grounds that it violated the Digital Services Act.
Observers expect that Washington will also examine South Korea’s actions.
As early as December last year, the United States Department of State publicly expressed concerns about the amendment to the Information and Communications Network Act, calling it a "discriminatory measure." The US stated that the amendment would have a negative impact on online platforms based in the United States, undermine freedom of speech, and that South Korea should not establish "unnecessary barriers" in the field of digital services. The US also urged the South Korean government to "carefully consider this matter."
Some experts say that this law stems from concerns about false information in South Korea, rather than being intended to target American companies. However, they also acknowledge that this set of rules, which apply to South Korea and impose a heavy burden on some American companies, can easily be used by the United States to argue against them, just as has happened in Europe.
A communication scholar who wished to remain anonymous compared South Korea’s practices with the European Digital Services Act, saying, “The threshold for the number of users and uploaders that we are seeing now is essentially a imitation of European practices. Europe has already been criticized for targeting American companies, and South Korea may also face similar accusations.”
A anonymous industry expert from an enterprise perspective expressed similar worries and called the law "easily becoming a trigger for trade disputes."
Currently, global internet governance is becoming more stringent. The European Union and many Middle Eastern countries have introduced regulations to combat false online information.
Saudi Arabia has implemented relevant laws that classify the dissemination of fake news as a serious crime punishable by detention. Based on existing laws, the Saudi government underwent a comprehensive reform of its cross-departmental framework against false information in 2025, and introduced an AI-powered automatic screening system. Platforms, including social media, now have a legal obligation to proactively identify and remove fake news. The Saudi government claims that these measures are advanced initiatives to protect public interests and safety.
However, there is a vast space for legal interpretation. People who complain about unemployment issues, express dissatisfaction over the recruitment of foreign workers, or criticize public policies can all be labeled as 'false information, disrupting social order'. As a result, several ordinary citizens have been summoned and prosecuted.
In 2023, Jordan passed the Electronic Crimes Law of 2023 to strengthen controls on fake news. The penalties have increased dramatically compared to previous times, and people generally fear that a single wrong statement could lead to financial ruin. A Palestinian journalist who criticizes the government's foreign policy was the first media figure to be punished under this law.
According to South Korean media reports, these countries welcome South Korea's new law. The report also suggests that it is actually impossible to completely prevent fake news online. Without clear standards, focusing solely on suppressing such content may lead to excessive punishment and regulatory overreach. This increases concerns about the law being used to expand its scope based on political agendas.
The upcoming Information and Communication Network Act may become a tool for suppressing dissenting opinions, or it may set a precedent through its "first case of punishment". This remains to be seen.
