[Edaily Reporter Lee So-Hyun ] The Korea Communications Commission (KCC) announced on the 8th that it has designated and notified a total of nine entities—five domestic providers, including Naver (NAVER(035420)), Kakao(035720), AXZ, Nate, and DC Inside, and four foreign providers, including Google, Meta, X, and TikTok—as large-scale information and communications service providers subject to obligations to address false and manipulated information under the amended Information and Communications Network Act.

These operators—which had an average daily user count of 1 million or more over the three months immediately preceding the end of the previous year—are subject to the regulation. Under the amended Information and Communications Network Act, they must establish voluntary operating policies to address false and manipulated information and implement procedures for receiving and processing reports.

The Commission emphasized that administrative fines are imposed on the users who post the information, not on the platform operators. This applies to cases where a user knowingly distributes information—which has been definitively ruled by a court to be illegal or false and manipulated—on two or more occasions.

The Commission distributed guidelines that day, serving as an explanatory manual for the amended Information and Communications Network Act and its enforcement decree. The guidelines specify the criteria for large-scale information and communications service providers, compliance requirements, remedies for damages caused by illegal or false and manipulated information, and sanctions for the distribution of false and manipulated information.

The following is a summary of the Q&A session with Shin Young-kyun, Director General of the Broadcasting and Communications User Policy Bureau at the KCC, held during a related briefing at the KCC headquarters in Gwacheon, Gyeonggi Province, at 4:00 p.m. that day.

- Which companies qualify as large-scale information and communications service providers as of the effective date?
△Domestic operators include Naver, Kakao, Nate, and DC Inside. Overseas operators include Google, Meta, X, and TikTok. We determined that a total of eight operators qualify as large-scale information and communications service providers and have notified them of their designation as regulated entities. (Following the briefing, the KCC corrected this figure to nine by adding AXG, the operator of the Daum portal.)

-When and how were the eight large-scale information and communications service providers notified?
△Notification was issued in writing—via official correspondence—on the morning of July 8. Based on data held by the Commission, these operators were deemed eligible for designation as they met the criterion of having an average daily user count of 1 million or more. They were given one week to submit a statement of defense in case of disagreement. If no such statement is submitted, the designation takes effect one week later.

-By when must the designated providers establish their self-regulatory policies?
△While the basic content of self-regulatory policies is stipulated by law, there is no specific deadline regarding when or how they must be established. Since there are currently no penalty provisions, the Commission cannot enforce compliance. However, we plan to request that operators establish and implement self-regulatory policies as quickly as possible through cooperation and collaboration. Going forward, we may conduct verification or investigations as necessary while monitoring the process of establishing standards and implementing self-regulatory policies.

-There are concerns that the reporting functions on platforms are still inadequate. Does the KCC plan to issue separate guidelines?
△Under the law, large-scale information and communications service providers are required to establish and operate self-regulatory policies. When they receive a report of illegal information or false or manipulated information, they must notify the reporter that the report has been received. Furthermore, if they take action regarding the reported content in accordance with their self-regulatory policy, they must notify both the reporter and the poster of the outcome. The Commission plans to request cooperation from service providers to assess and review the content of their self-regulatory policies, ensuring these requirements are properly reflected. It also has the authority to investigate and supervise whether service providers are properly implementing their self-regulatory policies after the fact.

- Satire and parody are listed as exceptions to false or manipulated information, but the guidelines also state that they may be included if certain requirements are met. What are the criteria?
△Service providers will make autonomous judgments regarding satire and parody as well. Service providers determine the specific criteria for identifying false or manipulated information and illegal content. If the government were to set specific boundaries, it could effectively result in the government establishing the standards for illegal or false/manipulated information, which could constitute excessive intervention. Therefore, caution is necessary. Ultimately, it is up to the courts to determine whether the information in question constitutes illegal or false/manipulated information, or whether it falls under satire or parody. As case law accumulates, specific criteria are expected to be established.

- In claims for aggravated damages, who determines whether information is illegal or false and manipulated?
△ The system for enhanced damages is designed to regulate influential, profit-driven content publishers. It was created to target such publishers because there have been many cases where false or manipulated information was created for profit, defaming individuals or causing social problems. Since these are matters leading to damages, the final determination rests with the courts.

-If a claim for enhanced damages is possible even after a single instance of dissemination, wouldn’t that discourage content publishers?
△It is important to note that the criteria for false or manipulated information are very specific. In addition to special provisions to prevent strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP), information published for the public interest is excluded from the scope of enhanced damages. Furthermore, if the publisher believed the information to be factually true at the time of dissemination and had reasonable grounds for that belief, enhanced damages do not apply. This law incorporates multiple layers of safeguards to protect freedom of expression.

-It will take time for court precedents to accumulate. Isn’t confusion inevitable in the meantime?
△The intent of this law is to establish that, regarding false or manipulated information, the judgments of administrative agencies—and even those of the Korea Communications Standards Commission—are not appropriate. To guarantee freedom of expression to the greatest extent possible, the system relies on the final judgment of the courts rather than leaving it to administrative agencies. The damages system is also fundamentally subject to the final judgment of the courts. The only practical way to establish specific criteria is through the accumulation of court precedents. However, regarding service providers’ self-regulatory policies, service providers may autonomously establish criteria and take appropriate measures.

- Is there a mechanism in place to obtain information on users of overseas platforms?
△Under the amended law, the Defamation Dispute Mediation Division of the existing Korea Communications Standards Commission will comprehensively handle dispute mediation related to illegal information and false or manipulated information. Requests for the provider’s information may be made during the process of filing a dispute mediation application or initiating a lawsuit. Based on a ruling by the Commission’s Dispute Mediation Bureau, a request for information can be made to the service provider; if the provider fails to comply, it may be subject to an administrative fine of up to 10 million won. However, it is true that under current law, obtaining information is difficult in exceptional circumstances, such as when the poster’s whereabouts are unknown or they are located overseas. In the case of U.S.-based service providers, it may be necessary to obtain information through U.S. courts. Institutional improvements in this regard are being reviewed at the National Assembly level, and relevant bills have been proposed.

- There is a possibility of erroneous rulings or cases of injustice. How are you preparing to provide prompt remedies?
△There is a structural relationship whereby the stricter the regulation of false and manipulated information, the more freedom of expression is inevitably curtailed. This point was taken into consideration when drafting the law. To minimize social problems and personal harm caused by the dissemination of false and manipulated information while restricting freedom of expression as little as possible, we have established a system of enhanced damages and administrative fines targeting profit-driven publishers. While self-regulation by service providers enables swift action, the decision to take action rests with the provider. If there is an issue with the action taken, a party may file an objection and subsequently apply for dispute mediation with the Dispute Mediation Committee of the Korea Internet & Communications Commission. If the matter is not resolved there, it can proceed to litigation. The law provides multi-layered remedies to protect both content publishers and reporters.

-Does information manipulated by AI also fall under the category of false or manipulated information?
△It may be included. However, what matters is not whether the content was generated by AI, but whether it constitutes false or manipulated information. Just because something was created by AI does not automatically make it false or manipulated information. In cases where platforms find it difficult to determine this using their own technology, the final judgment ultimately rests with the courts. Service providers cannot commit to deleting or taking action against content through self-regulatory policies in areas that cannot be determined with current technology. Service providers can take action within the scope of what is feasible and what can be determined with current technology; for areas where judgment is difficult, it is considered impractical to take action at this stage. Separate procedures for appeals, dispute mediation, and litigation are in place.

- How many fact-checking organizations are currently certified by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN)?
△Currently, JTBC is the only organization certified by the IFCN. However, we understand that there are about three organizations that have applied for IFCN certification and are currently awaiting approval.

-If JTBC is the only certified organization, wouldn’t that raise issues of fairness?
△It is true that only JTBC is currently certified. However, we do not anticipate a situation where JTBC would act alone or receive government support. Fundamentally, the structure allows large-scale information and communications service providers to enter into agreements with fact-checking organizations to receive support related to fact-checking. This is not a mandatory requirement but an option. Platform operators can take action based on their own judgment, or they can seek support from certified fact-checking organizations if necessary. As far as the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission is aware, companies such as Naver and Kakao have not expressed any intention to sign agreements with JTBC to receive support. It appears they are not considering this at the moment. Therefore, I do not believe an issue of fairness will arise immediately. This issue will naturally be resolved once the three organizations currently applying for certification receive their accreditation.

- When will the Information Transparency Center begin operations?
△The Information Transparency Center has not yet been established. Since the law was passed early this year and took effect on July 7, the budget for operating the Transparency Center was not included in this year’s budget. Once the center is established using contingency funds, the plan is to select fact-checking organizations eligible for support from among those certified by the IFCN through a separate evaluation process.

- How will the Information Transparency Center support fact-checking organizations?
△Budgetary support is available. Funding can be provided for the fact-checking organizations’ system development, database construction, fact-checking activities, training, and research projects.

- Can fact-checking organizations maintain their independence while receiving government support?
△The Committee on Media and Information has stated that even if it supports fact-checking organizations, it will not interfere with which topics the organizations select for fact-checking or the methods, procedures, and criteria they use to conduct fact-checking. The guidelines also reflect this policy of providing funding without interference.

-What is the budget for supporting fact-checking organizations?
△The Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission is working to secure a budget of approximately 2.8 billion won.

- Are the fines imposed on the people who posted the information, rather than on the platforms?
△Yes. The administrative fines are imposed not on platform operators but on the posters—such as “cyber-trolls”—who uploaded the information.

- In the criteria for imposing administrative fines, what do “the relevant information” or “the same information” mean?
△The Act uses the term “the relevant information,” while the Enforcement Decree uses “the same information.” This refers to information identical to that which a court has ruled to be illegal or false/manipulated. Basically, it targets the same information. However, there is room for judgment in cases where the content is essentially the same but the format has been altered in some way—such as changing the background image. Ultimately, the Korea Communications Commission (KCC) will determine whether to impose a fine. According to the enforcement decree, the target is information identical to that ruled upon in court.

-Since “policy distortion” is included in the detailed evaluation criteria for administrative fines, could criticism of government policy work against a party in the decision to impose sanctions?
△Administrative fines are fundamentally imposed on information that has been definitively ruled by a court to be illegal, false, or fabricated. The notice setting the criteria for imposing administrative fines serves as a guideline for determining specific amounts within a maximum range of 1 billion won. From the stage of setting the base amount, factors required by law—such as the level of intent or negligence—are comprehensively considered. For serious violations, higher-tier fine criteria are applied, while for minor violations, lower-tier criteria are applied. The lowest tier starts at 5 million won. “Policy distortion” is one of the criteria used to assess the degree of social impact. It is a factor that evaluates the extent to which the information in question has caused social problems. It is important to note that this criterion applies specifically when information—which has been ruled by a court to be illegal or false/manipulated—has been maliciously disseminated two or more times.

- Under what circumstances can a fine of up to 1 billion won be imposed?
△The range of administrative fines is set quite broadly. In very minor cases, lower standards are applied, while in cases that cause significant social problems, fines of up to 1 billion won may be imposed. However, this is contingent on the malicious distribution of information that has been definitively ruled by a court to be illegal or false/manipulated on two or more occasions.