Channel A Provides Viewer Information from 'Phone Counseling' to Sponsored Insurance Agency... Court Rules "Corrective Measures Justified"

The court ruled that the corrective action imposed by the Korea Communications Commission (KCC) on Channel A for providing viewer information collected through TV program consultation calls to corporate insurance agencies was justified.

According to the legal community on the 31st, the Seoul Administrative Court Administrative Division 3 (Chief Judge Choi Su-jin) recently ruled against Channel A in a lawsuit filed against the KCC seeking to cancel the corrective order.

From 2016 to 2021, Channel A produced asset consulting-related programs and entered into sponsorship contracts with corporate insurance agencies A and B to recruit and feature experts, receiving sponsorship fees from them.

The broadcast allowed viewers to call a number displayed at the top of the screen to receive free consultations from insurance experts. During this process, a telemarketing company that handled the consultations collected viewers’ names, phone numbers, addresses, dates of birth, and other information and provided it to companies A and B.

This was based on a clause in the sponsorship contract allowing Channel A to provide user information obtained through text or phone consultations to companies A and B.

The KCC imposed a corrective order and a fine of 18.8 million KRW on Channel A in December 2022, citing violations of the Broadcasting Act.

The Broadcasting Act prohibits broadcasters from providing viewer information obtained during broadcasts to third parties or misusing it unfairly.

Channel A argued, “Channel A did not collect viewer information nor transfer it to others, so it cannot be considered an act of unfairly providing viewer-related information to third parties. Also, the sponsorship fees received by Channel A were expected economic benefits from the broadcast appearances of insurance experts affiliated with the companies, so it cannot be seen as ‘unfair misuse.’”

However, the court did not accept Channel A’s claims.

The court judged that Channel A unfairly provided viewer information to third parties. The court stated, “The information was collected and provided to the corporate insurance agencies without explicitly informing viewers that their information would be transferred and used for marketing, while viewers were led to mistakenly believe that Channel A was the party conducting the phone consultations and that they were receiving consultations from insurance experts under that premise.”

Furthermore, the court recognized a substantive quid pro quo relationship between the sponsorship fees received from the companies and the provision of information. The court said, “It is hard to accept that Channel A would receive a substantial sponsorship fee merely because insurance experts from the companies appeared on the broadcast,” thereby acknowledging the unfair misuse of information.

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