[Edaily Reporter Kim Hyun-ah ] The Korea Communications Commission (KCC) is set to take disciplinary action against so-called “redirect ads”—ads that force users to the Coupang app or website even when they haven’t clicked on them.

A high-ranking official at the Korea Communications Commission (KCC) mentioned the possibility of sanctions this month in a phone call with E-Daily, stating, “We’ll do it this month,” regarding Coupang’s hijacking ads. The KCC has been conducting an investigation into the practice of redirecting users to the Coupang app or website in an unintended manner.

The KCC’s working group explained that it completed the relevant investigation late last year and is currently conducting administrative procedures to hear Coupang’s side of the story. The final determination of whether a legal violation occurred and the level of sanctions will be confirmed following Coupang’s defense and a committee vote. Sanctions are expected to be finalized as early as this month or, at the latest, early next month.

Redirected to Coupang Without Clicking… How Do ‘Hijacked Ads’ Work? Hijacked ads

are a method where users are redirected to Coupang simply

by

clicking on content on a news site or website. This is typically achieved by overlaying a “transparent click area”—invisible to the user—on top of the ad screen, so that a Coupang affiliate link is triggered the moment the user clicks the screen.

Users think they’re clicking on an article or piece of content, but in reality, a Coupang Partners link is triggered simultaneously, redirecting them to the Coupang app or website. The affiliate tracking code then records that visit as traffic from a specific partner.

If the user subsequently purchases a product on Coupang, a commission is paid to that partner. In essence, this structure turns the user’s unintended click into affiliate revenue.

The advertising industry views this as a prime example of ad abuse. An advertising industry official stated, “Acts that artificially inflate clicks and conversions through abnormal methods are generally considered abuse and are subject to monitoring and policy bans,” adding, “This is an issue where the responsibility of individuals or network media that indiscriminately use affiliate links intersects with that of the platforms tasked with managing and supervising them.”

Korea Communications Commission: “Investigation Complete… Currently in the Process of Hearing Coupang’s Explanation”

The

Korea Communications Commission

has already completed its investigation into this matter. However, sanctions are not immediately finalized based solely on the investigation results; the Commission is currently conducting administrative procedures to provide Coupang with advance notice of the proposed sanctions and to hear its opinions.

Kim Mi-jeong, Director of Market Investigation at the KCC, explained, “The on-site investigation has been completed,” adding, “We cannot impose sanctions immediately just because the investigation is over; we must follow legal administrative procedures, such as providing advance notice of the proposed sanctions and hearing Coupang’s comments.”

If Coupang submits a statement regarding the investigation results, the KCC will review it comprehensively, submit the final agenda to the committee, and seek a vote.

The Commission is taking a cautious stance regarding whether the actions constitute conduct detrimental to user interests under the Telecommunications Business Act. While Director Kim drew a line, noting that it is difficult to definitively determine the legality of the actions before the final resolution, she hinted that results could be announced soon.

This, coupled with a high-ranking official from the Commission mentioning the possibility of sanctions earlier this month, is interpreted as a sign that the relevant procedures are entering their final stages.

Separate from the Personal Information Protection Commission’s 201.1 billion won fine

Coupang’s “kidnapping ad” controversy is drawing attention in conjunction with the Personal Information Protection Commission’s 201.1 billion won fine. However, the direct reason for the fine imposed by the Commission was not the “kidnapping ad” itself, but Coupang’s collection of personal information—such as web and app usage records—without a lawful basis.

Coupang is currently challenging this decision in court.

Coupang maintains that the “kidnapping ads” were not directly orchestrated by Coupang but were the result of misconduct by some of its partner companies.

Under the Coupang Partners program, partners receive a commission when users who enter through affiliate links purchase a product within a certain time frame. Coupang claims that some partners generated abnormal traffic by using ad spaces invisible to users in order to earn this commission.

Coupang maintains that it did not turn a blind eye to this issue but has prohibited such activities in its contracts and has taken measures such as account termination and criminal complaints. Recently, it has also strengthened its policies prohibiting activities related to “kidnapped ads.”

Coupang argues that the 201.1 billion won fine imposed by the Personal Information Protection Commission is not a penalty specifically for “kidnapped ads,” and that directly sanctioning such ads under the Personal Information Protection Act is legally untenable.

“Different from Google and Meta”… Coupang Rebuts Claims on Personal Information Collection

Coupang also argues that it is problematic for the PIPC to equate its actions with the personal information collection practices of Google or Meta.

Unlike Google and Meta, which collected user activity data from third-party websites and used it for targeted advertising, Coupang argues that it primarily utilized data—such as search history and shopping cart information—from within its own services for advertising purposes.

Coupang explains that even information generated during the process of users being redirected to Coupang from external apps or websites is merely log data automatically recorded by the system in response to advertising partnership requests; it was not separately analyzed or used for targeted advertising.

Coupang maintains that there are legal issues involved in directly regulating the “kidnapped ads” issue solely under the Personal Information Protection Act. On the other hand, the act of redirecting users to the service in an unintended manner could be deemed a violation of user interests under the Telecommunications Business Act, drawing attention to whether the Korea Communications Commission (KCC) will impose sanctions.

If the Korea Communications Commission does impose sanctions, the controversy over “kidnapped ads” is expected to expand beyond the issue of personal data collection to encompass the responsibility of platform operators to manage not only which services are displayed to users but also how they are presented during the process of affiliate advertising.