Sensible or suppressive? How Korea’s ‘fake news’ law puts U.S. diplomacy, tech cooperation on the line.

Lawmakers vote on a revision to the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection aimed at curbing false and manipulated information during a plenary session of the National Assembly on Dec. 24, 2025. The bill was passed under the leadership of the ruling Democratic Party. [YONHAP]

[EXPLAINER]
 
Korea’s newly passed amendment to the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection — dubbed the Network Act — has triggered an unusually blunt response from the United States, fueling speculation that it could emerge as another source of trade friction between the allies in the new year.
 
Korea has framed the law as a good-faith effort to address the growing social harms caused by online disinformation, denying that it amounts to censorship or protectionism. The revision allows courts to impose punitive damages for the intentional spread of false or manipulated content and places new expectations on large online platforms, including content removal or account restrictions — a scenario U.S. officials warn could chill lawful speech and push U.S. platforms into pre-emptive moderation.
 
This interpretation has led Washington to escalate criticism, with a social media post by the U.S. under secretary of state and an official State Department statement warning that the law could infringe on the freedom of expression and hinder bilateral technology cooperation.
 
The gap between Seoul and Washington ultimately reflects differing priorities and levels of trust: Korea emphasizes the need to curb harmful misinformation, confident it can prevent abuse, while the United States prioritizes safeguarding freedom of expression, favoring market-based solutions or more narrowly tailored regulations.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio listens as President Donald Trump speaks at his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, on Dec. 22, 2025. [AP/YONHAP]

What exactly is Washington saying? 
 
Almost immediately after the amendment was passed, Washington took the unusual step of publicly criticizing it.
 
U.S. Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers warned in a post on X on Dec. 30 of last year that the Network Act amendment “reaches much further” than just targeting defamatory deepfakes and “endangers tech cooperation.”
 
She added that while deepfakes are a valid concern, “It’s better to give victims civil remedies than give regulators an invasive license for viewpoint-based censorship.”
 

An X post by Sarah Rogers, U.S. under secretary of state for public diplomacy, on Dec. 30, 2025, expresses disagreement with Korea’s recent passage of the antidisinformation bill. [SCREEN CAPTURE]

 
The very next day, the U.S. State Department reinforced Rogers’s message with an official statement.
 
A spokesperson said the United States has “significant concerns” about the law, which it warns “negatively impacts the business of U.S.-based online platforms and undermines free expression.”
 
The State Department further urged Korea to “not impose unnecessary barriers” in digital services, emphasizing that Washington “opposes censorship” while pledging to work with Seoul for a free and open digital environment.
 
Such strong language — including terms like “unnecessary barriers” and explicit mentions of censorship — is seldom seen in formal U.S. remarks about a partner nation’s laws, highlighting the potential weight of the issue on diplomacy and trade.
 

Contention surroundking Korea’s “Network Act” [CHUN YU-JIN]

What does the Korean law actually contain?
 
The law in question is an amendment to the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection aimed at clamping down on online falsehoods.
 
It was pushed by the ruling Democratic Party (DP) and passed the National Assembly on Dec. 24 of last year, then approved by the Cabinet on Dec. 30.
 
The core of the law, slated to take effect in July, penalizes the deliberate spread of false or manipulated information online with heavy civil damages. If a media outlet or online channel knowingly and intentionally disseminates false or fabricated content, courts can impose punitive damages up to five times the actual harm caused.
 
The law also places responsibilities on large internet platforms.
 
“Large information service providers,” or major online platforms, are allowed — and effectively encouraged — to take measures against false content, including removing or limiting access to such posts, suspending or deleting the accounts of repeat offenders, demonetizing false content or even halting services for serious violations.
 
These platform obligations are modeled in part on the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), which requires big tech firms to swiftly curb illegal and false information or face hefty fines.
 
The law will also set up a new “Transparency Center” under the Korea Communications Commission to support fact-checking and enhance transparency in platform content moderation.
 

Then why is the United States expressing such ‘serious concern’?

From Washington’s perspective, the Korean law poses a risk to freedom of expression — and U.S. tech business interests.
 
Major U.S.-based platforms like Google, Meta and X would likely fall under the “large platform” umbrella defined in the law.
 
The proposal would require covered platforms without a physical office in Korea to designate a domestic representative. Such local presence requirements, when combined with content moderation obligations, “can become a tool for government censorship,” the U.S. International Trade Commission warned.
 
“While Korea would argue that the measure does not technically require a foreign firm to establish a juridical presence in Korea, the requirement for the agent to assume liability for the behavior of the U.S. firm is tantamount to requiring residence, and thus clearly violates the spirit if not the letter of the local presence rule,” the Computer & Communications Industry Association, a Washington-based nonprofit organization, wrote in a report published in October. “Furthermore, given the strong likelihood that potential local representatives would be unwilling to accept such liability, affected companies might be forced to assign responsibilities to employees established locally.”
 
In trade terms, the Donald Trump administration views such a law as potential “nontariff barrier,” pointing out that it could discriminate against U.S. firms or limit their ability to operate freely abroad in contradiction to the pledge made in the recent Korea-U.S. summit fact sheet, where both countries promised to ensure that “U.S. companies are not discriminated against and do not face unnecessary barriers” under digital service laws.
 
The Trump administration and U.S. companies have repeatedly pushed back against Korea’s digital regulatory agenda, including efforts to advance an online platform law, impose network usage fees and restrict the overseas transfer of high-resolution map data by Google.
 
Just days before the Korean bill was approved, Washington imposed visa restrictions on five Europeans linked to their role in formulating the DSA. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio accused them of pressuring U.S. platforms to “censor, demonetize and suppress American viewpoints.”

Wi Sung-lac, national security adviser, briefs reporters on President Lee Jae Myung’s upcoming state visit to China at the Blue House in central Seoul on Jan. 2. [YONHAP]

What is Seoul’s stance on the law?
 
The Korean government and ruling party defend the law as a necessary step to protect society from the harms of rampant misinformation.
 
National Security Adviser Wi Sung-lac, who recently returned from a trip to the United States, said on Friday that Seoul and Washington already exchanged views during the drafting of the legislation and that dialogue is ongoing.
 
“There were exchanges of views between Korea and the United States regarding this law, and to my understanding, some [of the U.S. side’s views] were reflected,” Wi told reporters during a briefing at the Blue House. “Of course, from the U.S. perspective, [those reflections] may not be sufficient.”
 
The controversy also intersected with broader trade dynamics.
 
A closed-door Korea–U.S. FTA Joint Committee meeting scheduled for Dec. 18 of last year was abruptly postponed, prompting U.S. media reports to suggest that Washington’s dissatisfaction with Seoul’s digital regulations may have played a role.
 
Wi explained that he did not know exactly what factors were behind the postponement, but acknowledged that “it’s possible that various matters were connected.”
 
Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs noted in a press statement that the revision was prompted by Korea’s own “digital environment changes and social harm” from online falsehoods, and is “not targeting a particular nation or firm.” It added that it will explain the law’s purpose to Washington and work through diplomatic channels to prevent misunderstandings. 
 
Korea’s media regulator said it will seek input from stakeholders, including industry players, when drafting detailed enforcement ordinances, implying some flexibility in how the law will be implemented.
 
From Seoul’s perspective, the explosion of fake news and manipulated content in recent years has had real consequences — sowing social division, harming reputations and even, it notes, fueling unrest during political turmoil.
 
DP lawmakers argue the legislation is needed to counter deliberate falsehoods that “undermine democracy by fueling divisions and hate speech.” They maintain that the law targets only malicious actors who intentionally spread false information to cause harm or reap profits, not ordinary citizens or legitimate critics.

Lawmakers from the People Power Party speak during a press conference at the National Assembly on Jan. 2, calling for revisions to the “Network Act” and opposing proposed changes to the media arbitration law. [YONHAP]

What debate is there on the law domestically?
 
The legislation has been highly controversial within Korea as well, drawing intense criticism from the political opposition, civil rights groups and journalist associations.
 
Major civic organizations such as the progressive-leaning People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy have demanded President Lee Jae Myung veto the bill, arguing that it “would pose a threat to democracy by potentially infringing on the freedom of expression and the public’s right to information.”
 
The Journalists Association and media union warn that vague terms in the law could allow those in power to label even accurate reporting as “false” and sue or intimidate critics.
 
Lawmakers from the conservative opposition People Power Party (PPP) staged a 24-hour filibuster in a bid to delay its passage, although the legislation passed with votes from the DP and minor parties.
 
The PPP called for renewed discussions on revisions to the Network Act.
 
PPP floor leader Song Eon-seok underscored the gravity of the situation in a Facebook post on Thursday, describing the U.S. State Department’s public expression of concern over Korea’s domestic legislation as “highly unusual.” He likened it to the instance in 1979 when Washington voiced concern following the expulsion of then-opposition Rep. Kim Young-sam from the National Assembly, a move widely seen as a catalyst for the collapse of the Park Chung Hee government.
 
A group of Korean lawyers submitted an “urgent appeal” petition to the UN special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, arguing that the law could violate international free speech standards. The UN office has confirmed it is aware of the case and is reviewing possible actions.
 
If the special rapporteurs find the complaint credible, they could formally reach out to the Korean government — a process that has precedent: In 2021, the rapporteur warned that proposed revisions to Korea’s media arbitration law could chill legitimate journalism, which contributed to the DP withdrawing the bill amid international scrutiny.

While the UN rapporteur has no legal authority to block or invalidate domestic legislation, if it is determined that a complaint raises credible concerns, they may send a formal notice to the Korean government requesting clarification or recommending changes to bring the law in line with international human rights standards.

BY SEO JI-EUN [[email protected]]