The competition in the furniture and interior platform sector is intensifying. The industry leader Ohouse has been accused of unfair trading practices by 29CM, which is operated by Musinsa, during the process of reopening its premium platform, Binary Shop.
Musinsa claims that Ohouse is providing aggressive incentives to unfairly poach brands from 29CM or create a 'plant shop' by reducing the number of products. However, there is also a view that if Ohouse’s actions do not involve coercion, it can be seen as fair competition between platforms.
According to related industries on the 20th, Ohouse has recently undergone a major renewal of Binary Shop, which was launched only a year ago, introducing version 2.0. Binary Shop is a separate online boutique that gathers premium furniture. The existing platform, Ohouse, offers relatively lower prices. Binary Shop has adopted a two-track strategy focusing on premiumization.
The issue is that complaints are emerging from the competitor 29CM during this process. It is reported that Binary Shop has promised equity investments or similar commitments to key brands already listed on 29CM or those targeted for sales, conditionally asking them to completely halt sales on 29CM or reduce the share of popular products.
In fact, A company, a domestic premium chair brand, suspended all furniture-related items, such as premium chairs and sofas that were popular on 29CM from last year until the first half of this year, leaving only low-priced cups or interior accessories in the range of 10,000 to 20,000 won. In contrast, Binary Shop is currently selling high-end chairs priced between 800,000 and 900,000 won as exclusive items.
Another furniture brand operator, B company, has also pulled all interior products like sofas and chairs that were previously sold on 29CM and has instead increased the share of exclusive items under the name 'Ohouse ONLY' on Binary Shop.
Ohouse is the number one company in the furniture and interior platform industry. However, as 29CM's growth has been rapid recently, Ohouse has launched aggressive marketing to promote the renewed Binary Shop. 29CM has a number of popular furniture and interior brands and its cumulative transaction amount from January to November this year has grown by more than 50% compared to the previous year, surpassing 1 trillion won.
Some point out that Ohouse’s sales practices may violate fair trade laws. They claim it could constitute unfair trading practices such as transaction-restricting behaviors. Fair trade laws prohibit practices that hinder competition by imposing unfavorable conditions on specific trading partners. In other words, if Ohouse has requested brands to limit or reduce their sales on competing platforms, that could be classified as transaction-restricting behavior.
Furthermore, actions that restrict brands' rights to operate freely across multiple platforms (multi-homing) may limit market competition, which is a key focus of the Fair Trade Commission.
However, since Ohouse does not currently have a dominant market position, and if it did not coerce specific trading conditions but rather brands chose voluntarily, it becomes difficult to argue the case under fair trade laws. Instead, it can be interpreted as a part of healthy competition between platforms.
An Ohouse representative noted, 'Ohouse is engaged in various sales efforts to strengthen the competitiveness of listed brands,' adding, 'The conditions for listing on Binary Shop are not dependent on leaving other platforms.'
The representative further added, '29CM is also targeting brands listed on Ohouse for sales. Many existing brands listed on Ohouse have already independently listed on 29CM,' indicating that both companies are engaged in common sales competition to secure good partners.
Meanwhile, Musinsa, which operates 29CM, is also facing similar conflicts in the beauty sector with CJ Olive Young. The Fair Trade Commission is currently investigating allegations that Olive Young forced certain suppliers not to participate in Musinsa's promotional events. If true, this would constitute unfair practices involving coercion of event exclusivity for suppliers.