The Supreme Court has ruled that online shopping malls must provide sentence-form descriptions for product images for people with disabilities.
The Supreme Court's Third Division (presiding Justice Lee Suk-yeon) said on the 13th that it dismissed all appeals in a damages suit filed by A and 31 other people with visual impairments against the online shopping mall Gmarket on Apr. 12.
Accordingly, Gmarket must provide alternative text for images that can be read aloud through screen readers used by people with visual impairments within six months from the date the ruling is finalized. However, in March 2025 Gmarket expanded the provision of alternative text that people with visual impairments can use on computer screens or smartphones. It also streamlined navigation functions to prevent unnecessary guidance from repeating.
In 2017, the 31 plaintiffs, including A, filed a lawsuit seeking 2 million won each in consolation money, saying Gmarket engaged in discriminatory acts prohibited under the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities, causing emotional harm.
The plaintiffs argued that Gmarket either failed to provide or inadequately provided alternative text for product images posted on its web pages, and that preventing people with disabilities from accessing and using electronic information on an equal footing with people without disabilities constitutes discriminatory conduct.
During the trial, Gmarket said that when sellers register products on the website and attach image files, the system allows them to input alternative text, but some sellers provide the text only in a perfunctory manner. Gmarket also said that as a platform company, product display areas are managed entirely by sellers, so Gmarket has no authority to modify them. It further argued that it cannot revise the descriptions of as many as 82 million products.
In Feb. 2021, the first-instance court ordered Gmarket to pay 100,000 won each to the plaintiffs. It also ordered Gmarket to provide alternative text within six months from the date the ruling is finalized so that people with visual impairments can understand images using screen readers.
The first trial court said, "It appears sufficiently possible for Gmarket to operate a website with guaranteed accessibility, such as by adding a requirement in the terms applied to sellers to input adequate alternative text for product information."
In June 2023, the appellate court reversed the lower court's ruling ordering Gmarket to pay consolation money to the plaintiffs. However, it maintained the order to provide alternative text within six months of the final judgment.
The appellate court said, "Since 2013, when the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities began to apply, Gmarket has made considerable efforts to improve website accessibility," adding, "Given the current level of technology for rendering images as text, it is difficult to conclude that the discriminatory acts were due to Gmarket's intent or negligence."
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, saying the lower court's ruling neither exceeded the scope of discretion nor violated the principle of proportionality. The Supreme Court said, "When issuing a ruling that imposes an affirmative measure creating a fiscal burden on a private party defendant (Gmarket), the degree of effort the defendant made to avoid discriminatory acts must also be considered."