Two months after its implementation, the reporting system for misleading information, introduced to combat political fake news, has been primarily used for advertising and review disputes. Since the revised Information and Communications Network Act took effect, major portals like Naver and Daum have not made any deletions based on misleading information.
On September 2, the Korea Internet Self-Regulation Organization (KISO) revealed that of the 27 cases submitted for review, 70% were commercial posts, including accommodation promotions, restaurant reviews, and beauty treatment testimonials. All 23 cases that underwent final review were concluded to be irrelevant to misleading information.
The KISO Special Committee on Misleading Information held a press conference in Gwanghwamun, Seoul, to disclose the results of the 27 reports received from member companies since the revised law took effect on July 7. Excluding four cases that were deleted or temporarily addressed due to defamation, all 23 cases were determined to be 'not applicable' under the KISO guidelines for misleading information. No deletions were made based on misleading information.
The nature of the submitted cases was far from initial expectations. Of the 27 cases, 19 were categorized as 'information, reviews, and promotional' posts, accounting for 70% of the total. These included information related to travel agencies and accommodations, restaurant receipt reviews, beauty treatment testimonials, and product discount information. Examples mentioned during the conference included posts that used hotel lobby photos to promote a goshiwon and claims that certain substances are beneficial for health. The remaining cases involved disputes, defamation, and entertainment-related posts, with a few addressing academic or religious claims. There was virtually no politically or socially sensitive misleading information.
Chairman Kim Min-ho remarked, 'We expected that most of the initial cases would be politically sensitive, but the actual reports were completely different from our expectations.'
This outcome is due to the legal requirements for misleading information not aligning with commercial disputes. According to the revised Information and Communications Network Act, for information to be recognized as misleading, it must meet three criteria: the content must be false or altered to mislead; it must be intended to cause harm or gain unfair advantage; and it must infringe on the rights of others or the public interest. The committee reviewed these three criteria step by step, and if misleading or manipulative characteristics were not recognized, they omitted further judgment. Minor errors in details or lack of up-to-date information were not considered misleading or manipulative in the overall context.
In particular, the 'intent' requirement posed challenges in advertising and review disputes. Chairman Kim stated, 'When a blog post includes a negative review of a specific motel along with actual photos taken during the stay, it is quite difficult to determine whether the intent was to harm the motel or to express a consumer experience. Unless we can look into someone's mind, we cannot directly verify intent.' The committee has established a principle of interpreting intent restrictively, similar to how criminal intent is defined in law, by considering objective circumstances such as the content of the post, the circumstances of its creation, the extent of harm, the relationship with the victim, and the scope and method of dissemination.
The committee has distinguished personal rights infringement cases, such as defamation or invasion of privacy, to be handled under existing temporary measures. The review decisions carry binding force based on agreements with member companies like Naver, Kakao, and Daum, rather than legal enforcement. Chairman Kim explained that 'the actions taken based on the review results will be structured considering relevant regulations and member company policies.'
The revised Information and Communications Network Act mandates large-scale information and communication service providers to establish self-regulatory policies for misleading information, handle reports, and disclose transparency reports. Publishers with over 100,000 subscribers or an average of 100,000 views in the previous three months who intentionally or negligently disseminate misleading information causing harm will be subject to increased damages. KISO plans to continuously disclose review cases and results to enhance the predictability of self-regulation.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.