"Up to Fivefold Punitive Damages for Media Harm May Hinder Realistic Compensation for Emotional Distress"

Published 27 Aug.2025 15:11(KST)

Concerns Grow Over Potential for Abuse of Litigation
as Punitive Damages Bill Is Reintroduced

As the ruling party is once again pushing for a bill that would impose punitive damages up to five times the actual damages for those harmed by media reports, concerns are growing that such a measure would fail to achieve its original goal of victim relief and instead cause significant side effects. Critics point out that introducing punitive damages only in specific sectors is a piecemeal approach, which could hinder broader efforts to raise the level of compensation for emotional distress across society and undermine the effectiveness of the measure due to fairness issues with other cases.

Jeong Cheongrae, leader of the Democratic Party, is speaking about promoting 'punitive damages' for fake news by the media at the launch ceremony and first meeting of the Special Committee on National Sovereignty Media Reform held at the National Assembly on the 14th. Photo by Yonhap News

The introduction of punitive damages against the media could hinder the long-standing goal of "realistic compensation for emotional distress." This refers to efforts to raise the excessively low compensation amounts (damages for emotional distress) to realistic levels in various cases such as traffic accidents, violent crimes, and defamation.

A high court judge well-versed in media-related laws explained, "The multiple damages system, which has been introduced in some 20 laws including those on patent infringement, deals with quantifiable economic losses. However, damages from media reports are compensation for emotional distress, which is fundamentally different." He added, "If relief for media-related harm is resolved simply through multiple damages, the momentum for society-wide discussions to raise compensation for emotional distress will inevitably weaken."

There are also predictions that, even if the bill passes, it will be difficult to achieve practical results in court. Even if individual laws stipulate high compensation amounts, judges are likely to make conservative rulings to ensure fairness with other cases. A presiding judge who is a member of a damages research group within the court stated, "The multiple damages system is currently legislated sporadically, providing differential protection ranging from one to five times, but the basis for such differentiation is unclear. The emotional distress suffered by victims of violent crimes cannot be considered less than that caused by media reports. If only media-related harm receives several times more compensation, questions about fairness will inevitably arise."

Experts agree that a fundamental solution should be sought instead of piecemeal legislation. Alternatives being considered include reviewing the general principles of damages under civil law or having the courts significantly raise the standards for calculating compensation for emotional distress to better align with public expectations.

Hoh Moonhyuk, Professor Emeritus at Seoul National University Law School, suggested, "There is no particular legal obstacle to raising compensation for emotional distress, but the courts have lacked momentum because they have blindly followed precedents. It is necessary for the courts themselves to establish clear standards for damages, similar to sentencing guidelines."

The Democratic Party held a meeting of the Special Committee on Media Reform on the 18th to discuss revising the Press Arbitration Act to include punitive damages.

As an alternative to introducing multiple damages, the party is considering explicitly requiring that politicians, high-ranking public officials, and large company executives must go through mediation by the Press Arbitration Commission, and only allowing lawsuits if mediation fails-a system known as "mandatory pre-mediation."

The Democratic Party aims to pass the bill before the Chuseok holiday, but the Press Arbitration Commission is taking a cautious stance. A representative from the commission stated, "Swift resolution is crucial in media disputes, so institutional safeguards are essential to prevent punitive damages from leading to abuse of litigation."