This article was published on the ChosunBiz RM Report site at 4:58 p.m. on Jul. 13, 2026.
NAVER(NAVER(035420)) recently began retrial proceedings after receiving a Korea Fair Trade Commission (FTC) sanction for prioritizing its own content in video search results. It was the first hearing after the Supreme Court overturned the part NAVER lost and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court.
In this trial, the central issue has again become the extent to which a platform operator can reflect business strategy in its own search algorithm.
According to legal sources, the Seoul High Court Administrative Division 6-1 (High Court Judges Kim Min-gi, Choi Hang-seok, and Park Young-joo) held the first hearing of the remand trial on the 8th for NAVER's suit seeking to cancel the corrective order and penalty surcharge payment order against the Korea Fair Trade Commission (FTC).
In Jan. 2021, the Korea Fair Trade Commission (FTC) imposed a corrective order and a 200 million won penalty surcharge on NAVER, saying it adjusted its video search algorithm so that NAVER TV content appeared above other operators' content in search results. NAVER challenged the measure and filed an administrative lawsuit in Feb. the same year.
◇ Supreme Court: "Platforms can design their own search algorithms"
Before remand, the Seoul High Court in Feb. 2023 ruled partly in favor of the Korea Fair Trade Commission (FTC). However, in Nov. last year, the Supreme Court overturned the portion NAVER lost and sent the case back to the Seoul High Court. The Supreme Court found that NAVER's algorithm adjustments had a degree of rationality and also aimed to improve user convenience.
At the first hearing after remand, the Korea Fair Trade Commission (FTC) argued that the Supreme Court had assumed some facts incorrectly. The Supreme Court determined that NAVER reviewed the quality of individual videos and then gave extra points, but the FTC countered that scores were based not on the videos' intrinsic quality but on whether they were admitted to the NAVER TV themed section.
The Supreme Court said, "NAVER gave extra points only to videos in the NAVER TV themed section among its own videos, and those videos, unlike others, were allowed to be posted after additional internal screening," adding, "There is room to recognize a degree of rationality or the potential to enhance consumer benefits in giving extra points to videos whose quality can be ensured in this way."
◇ Kakao's 'franchise taxi preference algorithm' penalty surcharge also canceled
A Kakao Mobility case related to self-preferencing through algorithms is also pending before the Supreme Court. In May last year, the Seoul High Court ruled for the plaintiff in Kakao Mobility's suit to cancel the corrective order and other measures against the Korea Fair Trade Commission (FTC), ordering the cancellation of both the corrective order and the 27.1 billion won penalty surcharge imposed by the FTC. Kakao Mobility thus defeated the FTC in the lawsuit over its dispatch algorithm.
The Korea Fair Trade Commission (FTC) issued a corrective order and a penalty surcharge in Feb. 2023, saying that since 2019 Kakao Mobility adjusted parts of the Kakao T mid-sized taxi dispatch algorithm to prioritize assigning calls to Kakao T Blue franchise taxis. Kakao Mobility contested the measures and filed suit in Jul. the same year.
The Korea Fair Trade Commission (FTC) appealed the Seoul High Court's ruling, and the case is currently under review at the Supreme Court. The final outcome could change depending on the Supreme Court's judgment.
◇ Coupang entangled even with purchase reviews… will the NAVER legal reasoning apply
The courts' findings in the NAVER and Kakao Mobility cases are expected to affect Coupang's lawsuit underway at the Seoul High Court to cancel a penalty surcharge of about 160 billion won.
In 2024, the Korea Fair Trade Commission (FTC) imposed a corrective order and a 162.8 billion won penalty surcharge on Coupang, saying it adjusted its search algorithm to mislead consumers into believing its private label (PB) products were better than they actually were. The FTC also found that Coupang mobilized employees to write positive purchase reviews for PB products, hindering consumers' judgment.
Coupang argues that placing PB products at the top of search results was intended to recommend specific products and is normal business conduct commonly undertaken by retailers.
However, the Coupang case differs from the NAVER and Kakao Mobility cases in that a separate determination is needed on the act of employees writing about 70,000 purchase reviews. At the time, Coupang said, "Employee reviews accounted for only 0.3% of the 25 million total PB product reviews," and "the average rating of the employee trial group was lower than that of the general trial group."
◇ It is hard to find illegality based on "self-preferencing" alone… proof of restricting competition is key
Legal experts say it is difficult to immediately recognize illegality based solely on the fact that a platform prioritized its own products or content. They say courts must comprehensively assess whether there were rational criteria to improve user benefits and whether consumer choice was actually distorted.
Attorney Kim Jeong-min of LKB & Partners Pyeongsan said, "As a rule, the question of which products or content a platform operator prioritizes within its own service falls within the operator's managerial judgment," adding, "However, there is a need to prove with appropriate evidence that rational criteria to improve user benefits were reflected in the algorithm, rather than unconditionally pushing its own products to the front."
IT specialist and head attorney Lee Cheol-woo of Munhwa Law Office said, "The ruling in the NAVER case can serve as a guideline for judging future platform algorithm self-preferencing cases," adding, "For the Korea Fair Trade Commission (FTC) to prevail, it must prove that the platform operator had a clear intent to restrict competition and disrupt the market."