[Reporter’s Notebook] The KCC’s Dilemma Amid the Kakao-Google War

[Asia Economy Reporter Kang Nahum] "They showed vulnerabilities and responded passively."

It is a season of trials. The political sphere and public opinion are more critical than ever toward the Korea Communications Commission (KCC). This is because they have failed to control Google's deceptive tactics to enforce mandatory in-app payments. While the KCC guidelines are based on the principle of 'post-investigation,' user damages have increased during the on-site inspections. Due to the in-app payment fees reaching up to 30%, service fees for mobile content such as online video services (OTT), music, webtoons, and web novels have been rising one after another.

The KCC's passive stance has escalated into a conflict between Korea's leading IT company Kakao and the global IT giant Google. When Kakao maintained the outlink web payment method within the KakaoTalk application (app), Google refused to approve the latest version review, preventing KakaoTalk updates. In response, Kakao distributed the KakaoTalk installation file directly, intensifying the conflict. Meanwhile, Android KakaoTalk users were unable to update on time, and the damage was passed on to consumers.

The results of the three-party face-to-face meeting yesterday between the KCC, Kakao, and Google were also unsatisfactory. It remained at the level of a 'harmonious resolution agreement' in principle. The KCC's clumsy mediation has put itself in a dilemma. If Kakao withdraws its policy to maintain web payment outlinks, the blame will inevitably return to the KCC. This would mean acknowledging Google's justification for rejecting the approval of the latest KakaoTalk update, effectively siding with Google. Amid growing demands for regulation against Google, this could lead to criticism that the KCC is 'protecting Google.' On the other hand, if the conflict between both sides continues, it is also problematic. In that case, the KCC could be stigmatized as an incompetent agency that can neither regulate nor mediate.

No one else can be blamed because this entire situation was brought about by the KCC itself. If the enforcement decree of the Google Gapjil Prevention Act (Amendment to the Telecommunications Business Act) had been meticulously crafted and proactive regulation had been implemented, Google would not have resorted to loopholes, nor would app developers have raised content prices.

The purpose of the Google Gapjil Prevention Act is clear. It aims to guarantee the rights of developers and creators, enhance user rights, and promote a mutually beneficial business model where innovation and creativity thrive. If app market operators deviate from this purpose and engage in market abuse through deceptive tactics, even global companies should be appropriately regulated. It is regrettable that the KCC has only talked about 'on-site inspections' for over a month since Google's mandatory in-app payment policy was implemented, showing a passive response.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.