Platform Law, Mapping Data, App Store Fines Emerge as Potential Flashpoints
The Trump administration’s decision to launch a Section 301 investigation – following a US court ruling that invalidated its reciprocal tariff policy – is once again putting South Korea’s digital regulations under scrutiny.
In Seoul, the move has raised concerns that policies affecting US technology firms could face renewed trade pressure from Washington.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative said Friday it would initiate Section 301 investigations into major trading partners over what it described as discriminatory treatment of US companies and digital goods and services.
Under Section 301, Washington can impose tariffs or other trade measures if it determines a partner has engaged in unfair practices. The agency noted that tariffs remain among the available options.
The announcement immediately triggered unease in Seoul. However, some experts cautioned against viewing it as an automatic precursor to new tariffs.
Kim Tae-hwang, a professor of international trade at Myongji University, said Section 301 requires a formal investigative process and does not immediately result in retaliatory measures.
“It functions more as a pressure tool to strengthen bargaining leverage,” he said, adding that Washington would face political constraints if it sought to revisit issues already settled during reciprocal tariff negotiations.
“Agreed matters should be implemented faithfully,” Kim said. “But unrelated domestic regulatory policies should not be rolled back preemptively.”
Still, several Korean policy areas could attract renewed scrutiny.
Washington has previously characterized certain measures as nontariff barriers. These include proposed legislation requiring large content providers to share network usage costs and restrictions on exporting high-precision mapping data.
The mapping issue has resurfaced after Google recently submitted additional materials supporting its request to export 1:5,000-scale map data. While the company reportedly accepted conditions such as masking sensitive security facilities, it did not present plans to establish a domestic data center – a key concern for Seoul. A government review panel is expected to convene later this week.
The proposed Online Platform Act is another flashpoint. The bill, backed by the government and the ruling Democratic Party, aims to curb unfair practices by dominant platform operators and strengthen protections for small merchants. US officials have expressed concern that the legislation could disproportionately affect American tech firms. Lawmakers previously considered splitting the bill into separate competition and fair trade measures to ease tensions, but the shifting trade environment has complicated deliberations.
Attention is also focused on the enforcement decree of the Act on Combating False and Manipulated Information, overseen by the Korea Communications Commission. The law, set to take effect in July, allows punitive damages of up to five times actual losses in cases involving deliberate disinformation and expands oversight obligations for major platforms such as Google and Meta. The US State Department has warned that such measures could negatively affect American online platforms and urged restraint.
Regulatory action over Google and Apple’s in-app payment practices remains unresolved. In 2023, Korea’s regulator concluded the companies had unlawfully required developers to use proprietary payment systems and approved fines totaling 68 billion won ($47.1 million). The penalties have yet to be imposed amid leadership uncertainty at the commission.
A separate controversy involving a personal data leak at Coupang has also entered trade discussions. Some members of the US Congress have argued that Seoul’s antitrust and digital regulations disproportionately target American-owned firms.
Against this backdrop, Kim noted that Section 301 can serve as a targeted trade instrument, allowing country- or product-specific measures, but does not automatically trigger broad tariff action.
“We should faithfully implement what has already been agreed,” he said. “But domestic regulatory issues should not automatically be folded into trade negotiations.”
yeeun
