Harold Rogers, the interim CEO of e-commerce giant Coupang, recently testified before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee in a closed-door deposition. This marks the first formal congressional inquiry into allegations of unfair treatment by South Korean authorities towards the U.S.-listed company.
Rogers’ appearance followed a subpoena issued to Coupang leadership on February 5th by the committee. Lawmakers stated the subpoena was part of an “ongoing investigation into South Korea’s discriminatory targeting of innovative American companies,” specifically focusing on a data breach that affected approximately 33.7 million users in South Korea.
The deposition, which was not open to the public, lasted over seven hours. Rogers declined to comment on his testimony or the committee’s specific concerns following the session.
A committee spokesperson also declined to provide specific details regarding the inquiry. However, they stated the investigation aims to assess whether U.S. companies have faced discriminatory treatment. The spokesperson further emphasized that potential next steps remain under consideration, stating, “Everything is on the table.”
In a statement released after the closed-door meeting, Coupang expressed regret over the circumstances in South Korea that led to the congressional deposition.
“We remain committed to seeking a constructive resolution,” said Robert Porter, Coupang’s chief global affairs officer. “More broadly, Coupang hopes to be able to serve as a bridge between the United States and Korea, helping improve the bilateral economic relationship, strengthen the security alliance, and accelerate trade and investment that benefits both countries.”
This deposition occurs at a critical juncture, as the Coupang dispute could be used as evidence of discriminatory conduct under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. This section allows the President, potentially Donald Trump, to impose tariffs in response to perceived “unfair” treatment of U.S. firms.
In January, institutional investors in Coupang petitioned the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to initiate a Section 301 probe, arguing that extensive regulatory actions by South Korean authorities resulted in significant financial losses. South Korean officials, however, maintain the investigation is a legitimate legal matter conducted under domestic law and is unrelated to trade issues.
