A cap on delivery app fees is gaining traction again in and outside politics. Following a recent massive personal data leak at Coupang, calls have grown for broader platform regulation, shifting the mood around delivery platform fee structures. Some say the delivery app fee cap, which failed to clear the National Assembly before, could be enacted into law this time.
As of the 18th, according to political and retail industry sources, scrutiny over platform companies' responsibility and control has tightened after Coupang's personal data leak involving 33.7 million cases. With platforms now effectively an essential part of daily infrastructure, fundamental questions have arisen beyond personal data protection, such as whether it is acceptable to leave everything to platform companies' self-regulation. In this context, the delivery app fee cap is drawing attention again.
There are more than 10 bills on a delivery app fee cap introduced in the 22nd National Assembly, according to the National Assembly's bill information system. A key bill is the "act on fees for food delivery platform services," introduced on the 9th by lawmaker Kim Nam-geun of the Democratic Party of Korea. Its core is to impose a penalty surcharge of up to 10% of annual sales if a delivery platform operator charges small self-employed businesses unfair brokerage or payment fees.
The "act on fair transactions in delivery platform dealings," introduced by fellow party lawmaker Lee Kang-il, would set caps on brokerage fees, payment fees, and advertising costs that platform operators impose on onboarded merchants and impose a penalty surcharge of up to 3% of sales if they violate the limits. The "partial amendment to the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act," introduced by People Power Party lawmaker Park Jeong-hoon, would bar the total of delivery fees, commissions, and advertising costs imposed by platform operators from exceeding 15% of order sales.
This is not the first time multiple related bills have been introduced. Many failed to pass the relevant standing committees and did not become law under the banner of "market autonomy" and "ensuring innovation." The delivery and platform industries have also stressed that fee regulations could shrink services and hinder innovation, and that the expense burden could lead to higher consumer prices.
However, some say the political climate around a delivery app fee cap is different now. Among ruling and opposition lawmakers on the National Policy Committee and the Science. ICT. Broadcasting. and Communications Committee, there is a growing consensus that platform accountability and transparency should be examined more strictly. Regardless of party, remarks have continued that "there are limits to leaving everything to platform self-regulation," strengthening the view that delivery app fees should be discussed in the same vein.
A ruling party official on the National Policy Committee said, "With platforms functioning as de facto essential distribution networks, there are limits to self-regulation," adding, "There needs to be at least a basic set of rules on fee structures codified into law." An opposition party official said, "We acknowledge the need to look into platform fee structures," but added, "A cautious approach is needed because sufficient social debate must precede any action to reduce foreseeable side effects."
Industry players are also watching this mood. A platform industry official said, "Given the complex interests surrounding delivery and platform fee structures, many areas require social consensus," but added, "In the wake of the Coupang incident, political perceptions of platforms have shifted from 'growth and innovation industries' to 'subjects of oversight,' which does make legislation more likely than before." The official added, "Even if a conclusion is not reached in the short term, it appears we have entered a stage where it is no longer possible to put this off."
Park Sang-byeong, a professor at the Inha University Graduate School of Policy Studies, said, "With public expectations for platform regulation rising, both parties will find it increasingly burdensome to keep delaying discussions," adding, "The ruling and opposition parties will start legislative discussions with regulatory measures at a level where at least minimal agreement is possible." He added, "There is a high likelihood that a substantial portion of legislative discussions on specific regulatory methods and follow-up measures will proceed between January and March next year."