[BODY]
Ahead of the enforcement of the so-called "Anti-Disinformation Act" (a revision to the Information and Communications Network Act) aimed at preventing the circulation of false and manipulated information, domestic platform companies are strengthening their response by revising service policies and taking other measures. However, while the industry has established self-regulatory guidelines, concerns are emerging that considerable confusion and trial-and-error will be inevitable in the early stages of enforcement, as the concept of disinformation and the scope of regulation remain ambiguous.
According to the IT industry on the 1st, Kakao and Daum recently revised their service operating policies to align with the law's enforcement, including adding the circulation of disinformation to their prohibited activities. Both companies announced they would comply with the guidelines of the Korea Internet Self-governance Organization (KISO) as their detailed criteria for judgment. Major platform companies including Naver are also reviewing their reporting functions and internal processing procedures based on the KISO guidelines.
The revised Information and Communications Network Act, which takes effect on the 7th of this month, contains punitive damages provisions for the circulation of disinformation, but leaves specific judgments and measures to be established by large-scale information and communications service providers themselves. In response, KISO — whose member companies include Naver and Kakao — moved to respond by announcing self-regulatory guidelines containing criteria for judging disinformation on the 19th of last month.
However, voices within the industry remain concerned about practical confusion. One industry official pointed out, "The criteria for judging the concept of 'disinformation' are unclear, so massive confusion over interpreting the law is expected once it takes effect," adding, "Reckless lawsuits could proliferate until various cases accumulate and reference points are established."
Concerns have also been raised that setting regulatory standards at the "business operator level" rather than by individual service means that even when a large platform company launches new user-to-user information intermediary services — such as social networking services, online communities, or video-sharing services — they will be subject to regulation, which could hinder innovation in the digital ecosystem.
As legal uncertainty grows, some are calling for minimum safeguards to protect platform operators. The Korea Internet Corporations Association stressed, "A predictable legal environment can only be created if the enforcement decree includes explicit immunity provisions, so that platform companies can review and act on reported content in good faith without being harassed by malicious litigation threats."
