Carrot, which did not verify the identity information of professional sellers operating within the platform and did not provide relevant information to customers, has received a corrective order and fines from the Fair Trade Commission.
The Fair Trade Commission announced on the 5th that it decided to impose a corrective order and fines of 1 million won on Carrot, which operates the online second-hand trading platform 'Carrot', for failing to fulfill its obligations as an e-commerce intermediary and cyber mall operator under the Electronic Commerce Act.
According to the Fair Trade Commission, Carrot did not verify the identity information of sellers selling goods or services to consumers under names such as 'local advertisement' or 'advertisement' on the service platform. This act violates the obligations of an e-commerce intermediary as stipulated in Article 20, Paragraph 2 of the Electronic Commerce Act, according to the Fair Trade Commission.
However, the Fair Trade Commission was unable to conclude how Carrot should disclose that information to customers. In the case of transactions between individuals on 'Carrot', it is difficult to separately distinguish non-face-to-face transactions that fall under remote sales, as both face-to-face and non-face-to-face forms are mixed. Additionally, it noted that excessively requiring personal information could have side effects from a personal information protection perspective. A Fair Trade Commission official said, 'This year's main business plans of the Fair Trade Commission include tasks such as adjusting the scope of personal information collection for C2C platforms,' adding, 'It was deemed necessary to reserve the committee's judgment and conclude the review process.'
Carrot Market was also criticized for not notifying customers of the fact that it is a 'remote sales intermediary.' It was also pointed out that while operating the cyber mall 'Carrot', it did not display its business name, representative's name, address, phone number, email address, business registration number, and the name of the hosting service provider. A Fair Trade Commission official explained, 'This is an act that violates the obligations of cyber mall operators under Article 10, Paragraph 1 of the Electronic Commerce Act,' and said, 'It was decided to impose fines along with compliance orders.'
The Fair Trade Commission described this sanction as a case clarifying the 'obligation to verify the identity information of remote sales intermediaries.' A Fair Trade Commission official stated, 'By ensuring that e-commerce intermediaries comply with their obligations under the Electronic Commerce Act, it can contribute to preventing consumer harm,' and noted, 'We plan to take strict measures against violations of the law by online platform operators in the future.'