The Korean government is willing to engage in discussions with American companies not just in Korea but also in the U.S. The statement comes in response to the latest claim by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which suggested that the government is hastily regulating dominant online platforms in the market without sufficient dialogue with the American business community and the U.S. government, according to the Fair Trade Commission (FTC), Tuesday.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce urged the FTC on Monday (local time) to show transparency and open dialogue regarding this issue.

The envisioned Platform Fair Competition Act is aimed at banning unfair activities by monopolistic online and mobile platforms by designating specific companies as “influential players.” While the FTC is expected to unveil a detailed government plan next month, it is possible that U.S. companies such as Apple, Google, Amazon, and Meta, along with Korean companies like Naver and Kakao, could be among those included in the legislation.

Charles Freeman, senior vice president for Asia at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said in a statement that it is crucial that the full text of any proposed legislation should be made publicly available, and that the Korean government needs to provide ample opportunities for engagement with a range of stakeholders.

“Having closely monitored legislative conversations in multiple countries, including failed attempts to pass platform legislation in the U.S., the U.S. Chamber can attest that these platform proposals are deeply flawed,” he said. “They trample on competition that clearly benefits consumers, ignore good regulatory practices fundamental to sound regulatory models, and place governments in a position of violating their trade commitments by arbitrarily targeting foreign firms.”

In response, the FTC emphasized that its officials met twice this month with members of the American Chamber of Commerce in Korea (AMCHAM) to discuss the planned platform regulations. The antitrust agency also said that its chairman will deliver a presentation to AMCHAM members on March 7.

However, FTC officials failed to meet the representatives of Google, Apple and Meta during their visit to AMCHAM’s head office on Jan. 25.

The U.S. tech giants reportedly skipped the meeting due to concerns that Korea’s forthcoming competition policy rules might unintentionally provide an advantage to Chinese latecomers such as Aliexpress and Temu. These Chinese platforms are expected to be unaffected by the regulations due to their comparatively lower market shares.

In addition, AMCHAM is not affiliated with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, although the two organizations have sometimes cooperated with each other to defend American companies in Korea. An AMCHAM spokesperson explained that the recent statement by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is not related to AMCHAM’s official stance.

The FTC told The Korea Times that it will also communicate with American companies in the U.S. if they contact the Korean antitrust agency’s officers in Washington, D.C.

“To streamline communication in terms of time and cost, our primary engagement has been with AMCHAM. The expectation is that the discussions held with AMCHAM will be effectively conveyed to the U.S. stakeholders,” said the head of the FTC’s digital economy policy division, who is in charge of handling platform regulations.

Earlier this month, the Center for Strategic & International Studies said in a report that Korea’s proposed platform regulations unfairly target U.S. companies which will, in turn, end up helping Chinese rivals gain a larger market share.

Last December, Robert O’Brien, former national security adviser for former U.S. President Donald Trump, claimed that Korea’s proposed regulations to prevent unfair market activities by major online platform businesses would be a “gift” to China, warning they could cause friction with the U.S. if enacted.

Consequently, concerns are escalating that the Yoon Suk Yeol administration’s efforts to regulate online platforms may be developing into a potential diplomatic dispute with the U.S.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here