[Edaily Reporter Kim Hyun-ah ] A debate continues over the claim that fines imposed by the Korea Fair Trade Commission on U.S. companies are more excessive than those imposed on domestic companies.

After the Fair Trade Commission refuted reports citing a U.S. think tank’s report, the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), a U.S. IT industry group, issued a counter-rebuttal based on its own analysis. Concerns have also been raised that the controversy over discrimination against U.S. companies could escalate into a trade dispute surrounding the enforcement of South Korea’s competition laws.

This controversy began with a report released by the U.S.-based Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) on the 19th (local time). ITIF claimed that, based on an analysis of the Fair Trade Commission’s fine data from 2016 to 2025, the average fine imposed on U.S. companies was approximately 39 billion won—21 times the average of about 1.9 billion won for South Korean companies. It also emphasized that U.S. companies accounted for more than 81% of the fines imposed on foreign firms.

Based on this, ITIF argued that the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) should launch an investigation under Section 301 of the Trade Act. The foundation contends that South Korea’s competition law enforcement and platform regulations could disadvantage U.S. technology companies. Section 301 of the Trade Act is a provision that allows the United States to take retaliatory measures in response to unfair or discriminatory trade practices by foreign countries.

The Fair Trade Commission issued a clarification statement on the 21st, refuting the claim and stating that there is no discrimination based on corporate nationality. It explained that the high average fines for U.S. companies were due to significant violations by large global firms such as Qualcomm.

The commission stated that while statistics on U.S. companies primarily include large-scale violations of the Fair Trade Act, statistics on Korean companies include violations of other laws with lower fine caps as well as minor violations by small businesses, making a simple comparison of averages difficult.

The agency also cited specific examples. Coupang’s fine was 2.0% of relevant revenue, Naver’s (NAVER(035420)) was 1.8%, and Kakao(035720)’s was 3.0%. It explained that the 224.9 billion won fine imposed on Google in 2021 was also lower than the approximately 5.6 trillion won imposed by the European Union (EU) for the same matter. The KFTC maintains that fines are calculated based on the nature and severity of the violation, as well as related revenue, rather than the company’s nationality.

However, the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) countered that the Fair Trade Commission’s explanation fails to account for the results of their own analysis. Trevor Wagner, Director and Chief Economist of the CCIA Research Center, stated in a separate op-ed that he analyzed 1,203 penalty decisions and 3,453 respondent cases made public between 2016 and 2025.

The CCIA argued that even after controlling for factors such as industry and year, the level of fines imposed on U.S. companies was higher than that imposed on Korean companies. It stated that the difference was 5.1 times when analyzed by respondent and 2.3 to 2.5 times when analyzed by decision. It added that even excluding Qualcomm, the gap per respondent reached 4.4 times.

The CCIA also raised questions about the scope of relevant revenue used as the basis for calculating fines. It argued that even if fine rates are similar, the actual level of penalties can vary depending on the extent to which revenue is recognized for calculation purposes. It cited cases where discrepancies existed between the amounts announced at the time the fines were imposed and those later stated in written decision documents.

Accordingly, the CCIA demanded that the Fair Trade Commission disclose the specific basis for calculating the fines, including relevant products, transaction regions, the calculation period, the severity of the violations, and mitigating factors. It also argued that U.S. trade authorities should obtain relevant data and investigate whether U.S. companies are receiving fair treatment.

However, the analyses by ITIF and CCIA differ in the cases they examine and the methods of comparison used. It is difficult to conclusively determine, based solely on the statistics presented by both sides, whether discrimination based on corporate nationality has occurred.

The KFTC maintains that it applied the calculation standards prescribed by law, while U.S. industry groups counter that the calculation of relevant sales and the level of sanctions imposed in each case should be disclosed more transparently.

A pattern has emerged in which South Korean competition authorities respond to concerns raised by groups representing U.S. technology companies, only for U.S. industry groups to refute those responses. The key issues now are whether the U.S. request for a Section 301 investigation will actually lead to trade pressure and whether the Fair Trade Commission can resolve the controversy by providing specific grounds for its calculations.