South Korean e-commerce giant Coupang’s ownership structure under scrutiny as US class action advances

December 10, 2025

SEOUL – Coupang faces mounting legal and governance pressure in the US after a massive data leak affecting over 33 million users, as a New York-based law office representing Korean victims prepares a class-action lawsuit seeking punitive damages.

SJKP, a US office of law firm Daeryun, announced Monday that it would gather as many victims as it can to file for a punitive damages claim against Coupang Inc., which went public on the New York Stock Exchange in March 2021, in New York federal court.

“As of Sunday, we have gathered over 200 plaintiffs and plan to bring the number to about 1,000 by the end of the year to file a lawsuit,” said Kim Kuk-il, Daeryun law firm’s managing partner, in a press conference held at SJKP’s New York office.

“Apart from the ongoing lawsuit in Korea, the US lawsuit will proceed independently. While the (Korean lawsuit) focuses on compensating for consumer damage, the (US lawsuit) will essentially be a different lawsuit that deals with the failure of (Coupang’s) governance structure and violation of filing obligations.”

Coupang has been under fire since it reported on Nov. 29 that personal information of some 33.7 million users had been leaked, including names, phone numbers, residences, email addresses and recent order logs.

Despite the US Securities and Exchange Commission requiring public companies to file a report within four business days of determining a significant cyber incident, Coupang had not filed any document to the SEC as of Tuesday. The company said that it had first acknowledged the data breach on Nov. 18.

“Although (Coupang) has its headquarters in the US, the damage from the personal data leak occurred around the world, including in Korea,” said Kim. “As it marks the first case in which the route of data leak remains unclear — whether it was in Korea or in China — it is a matter that the US court can surely handle.”

Noting that it is difficult to prove the damages in Korea if a company seals information, Kim added that if the US headquarters of Coupang has practical access to Korean Coupang’s systems and data, the US court can force Coupang to submit relevant information regardless of the location of its servers.

“Coupang grew by leveraging the Korean people’s data and went public on the New York Stock Exchange,” said Kim. “(Coupang) is taking profits to the US while avoiding responsibility due to Korea’s loose regulations. The days when a headquarters is exempted from accountability just because an incident occurred outside the borders are gone.”

Tal Hirshberg, an associate at SJKP, pointed out that the essence of this lawsuit is to uncover the causal link showing that Coupang headquarters actually exercised decision-making authority in key areas such as data security, protection of personal information and investment in IT infrastructure.

As for notable precedents of punitive damages compensation cases over data breach incidents in the US, Equifax and Facebook had to pay $425 million and $725 million, respectively, to settle class-action lawsuits.

Meanwhile, Seoul police on Tuesday raided Coupang’s Korean headquarters for a search-and-seizure to look for evidence that could reveal how the data leak occurred.

According to the presidential office later in the day, President Lee Jae Myung also instructed the Cabinet to review ways to grant agencies such as the Fair Trade Commission investigative authority that would allow them to impose economic sanctions directly — citing the Coupang case as an example for levying fines. Lee reiterated his view that strong financial penalties, rather than criminal prosecution alone, are needed to deter illegal business practices and safeguard market order.

Coupang Inc., a Delaware-incorporated company that went public on the NYSE in March 2021, sits atop the ownership structure, while holding Korean Coupang, Coupang USA, Coupang Asia Holdings and online luxury fashion marketplace Farfetch as subsidiaries. Coupang Inc. holds a 100 percent stake in Korean Coupang.

On top of the outside-of-Korea ownership structure, market observers have raised concerns over Bom Kim, founder and CEO of Coupang Inc., being able to practically make decisions on his own.

Kim holds about 157.8 million shares of Class B common stock, about 8.8 percent of the total. In Coupang Inc.’s case, a Class B common stock has a voting power that is 29 times larger than that of a Class A common stock, meaning that Kim’s stake controls approximately 74 percent of voting rights.

“Coupang’s ownership structure has likely insulated it from addressing governance-related shareholder concerns over the years,” said SquareWell Partners, an independent shareholder advisory firm.

“Although investors have raised the following issues in the past (most recently at the 2025 annual general meeting), they have not led to meaningful improvements; and this lack of accountability may have contributed to the recent incident.”

For instance, DWS and AllianzGI voted against Kim during the 2025 annual general meeting, citing concerns that the Coupang leader “has not adequately addressed issues pertaining to the company’s failure to address (environmental, social and governance) risks and is significantly lagging its peers” and that he does “not support multiple-class share structures and differential voting rights, particularly where these may be disadvantageous to minority shareholders.”

SquareWell Partners added that some of Coupang’s major institutional investors such as T. Rowe Price, BlackRock and Morgan Stanley, have generally emphasized holding boards accountable in cases of significant controversy, including failure of governance or oversight.

“Investors may look to hold key directors, including Bom Kim, accountable at the 2026 (annual general meeting),” said SquareWell Partners.

“While it may be easier to avoid scrutiny (particularly where the ownership structure limits accountability) we would argue that even companies like Coupang benefit from adopting a more open and receptive stance toward investor feedback, which can provide genuinely useful insights to drive fundamental improvements that benefit all stakeholders, including those that maintain control.”