A Cursory Overview of Self-Preferencing in Korea: NAVER Shopping

Abstract

The triumph of the self-preferencing doctrine is not confined to Europe but is found in many other jurisdictions as well. Korea is a case in point. On December 14, 2022, the Seoul High Court decided that the Korean competition authority (i.e., Korea Fair Trade Commission, ‘KFTC’) was right to sanction “self-preferencing” as abuse of dominance in NAVER shopping (Decision No. 2021-027), the Korean equivalent of Google Shopping (AT.39740).

Following the decision, on January 12, 2023, the KFTC released the Guidelines for Review of Abuse of Dominance by Online Platform Operators (“Platform Guidelines”), declaring that self-preferencing can be a violation of Article 5 of the Korean competition law, i.e., Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (‘MRFTA’).

How has the concept of self-preferencing so successfully dissolved into Korea’s competition law and policy? And how is the doctrine being developed in Korea at the moment? In this blog entry, I tried to overview the process of the self-preferencing concept becoming settled as a legal doctrine in Korea through the NAVER Shopping case.

NOTE 1: Due to technical reasons, the previously uploaded file (which was available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4361842) has been deleted. The current file is the same as the one previously uploaded.

NOTE 2: The attached file was updated on Oct 5, 2024, replacing links with footnotes for the convenience of readers. The content and page numbers remain unchanged.

Keywords: Self-Preferencing, Google Shopping, Naver Shopping, Search Bias, Platform, KFTC, Seoul High Court, Algorithm, Brussels Effect, European Commission

JEL Classification: D42, K20, K21, K23, K42, L12, L40, L41, L86