In late December 2025, the South Korean parliament passed an amendment to the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection—dubbed the Network Act—aimed at combating fake news and disinformation.
Known in Korea as the “anti-fake news bill,” the legislation defines false and fabricated information and seeks to prohibit its spread over telecommunication networks. However, the bill sparked a wave of criticism.
South Korea Enacts Law to Counter Disinformation
The new South Korean anti-fake news bill, set to take effect in July, allows punitive damages of up to five times the losses for traditional media outlets and YouTubers found spreading disinformation for illicit gain. It also includes fines of up to 50 million won ($34,494) for losses that cannot be precisely quantified.
According to the bill, if information already ruled “false or fabricated” is shared more than twice, the Korea Communications Commission (KCC), the country’s media regulator, can impose fines of up to 1 billion won.
The outlets and channels subject to these penalties would be designated by presidential decree, according to Yonhap News Agency.
The law also places heavy responsibility on large internet platforms, requiring them to remove or restrict access to false content, suspend or delete repeat offenders’ accounts, demonetize misleading content, or even halt services for serious violations.
According to Korean news reports, these platform obligations are partly modeled on the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), which mandates that major tech firms quickly curb illegal and false information or face steep fines.
The bill also establishes a new “Transparency Center” under the KCC to support fact-checking and enhance transparency in platform content moderation.
The bill was adopted after a filibuster by the opposition expired due to the 20-hour time limit. The opposition criticized the legislation, viewing it as an attempt to silence the media and undermine freedom of expression, while the ruling party argued that the law aims to curb the spread of false and fabricated information and strengthen accountability.
Controversial Bill Draws Widespread Criticism
The new anti-disinformation bill has been widely criticized as a form of censorship and has been surrounded by controversy since its inception. Officials noted that the main challenge lies in defining what constitutes “false and fabricated” information, while some argued that banning the spread of information could be unconstitutional. Meanwhile, the opposition accused the bill of aiming to silence the press and undermine freedom of speech.
Journalists and media professionals also raised concerns, and civil society groups called for a presidential veto, citing the bill’s potential to violate freedom of expression amid deep apprehension that exists across the political spectrum, including among civic groups and members of the liberal ruling bloc, according to Yonhap News Agency.
The law specifies that strong punitive measures will apply only when illegal, false, or fabricated information is spread with the intent to cause harm or gain illicit benefits. However, it also stipulates that anyone who defames another person by presenting facts with the intent to slander may face up to three years in prison or a fine of up to 30 million won.
Critics have warned that the bill could make it easier for public figures and celebrities to file complaints and lawsuits against the press and questions were also raised about the urgency with which the legislation was pushed through, with some suggesting that its backers may have specific agendas.
According to Korean news outlets, the bill could face a second review if the president vetoes it, as urged by opposition parties and civil society groups. Some sources have recommended that the president return the bill for bipartisan consultation to produce a more carefully considered law, safeguarding Korean democracy by ensuring the free flow of information, freedom of expression, and public participation in efforts to counter fake news.
Meanwhile, many argue that a healthy democracy depends not only on the independence of government branches but also on the watchdog role of the press.
News outlets have noted that the bill’s extensive list of penalties against the media has sparked widespread skepticism in a country whose democracy was severely tested but has since recovered. Observers have stressed that efforts to counter disinformation should not compromise press freedom, freedom of expression, or the public’s right to access information.
The legislation also triggered a strong response from the United States, despite Korean officials presenting it as a good-faith effort to address online disinformation and denying that it constitutes censorship or protectionism.
The bill also allows courts to impose punitive damages and places new obligations on major online platforms, including content removal and account restrictions, a scenario U.S. officials have warned could chill lawful speech and push platforms into pre-emptive moderation.
The situation prompted the U.S. to escalate its criticism, with a social media post by the Secretary of State and an official State Department statement warning that the law could infringe on freedom of expression and hinder bilateral technology cooperation.
“South Korea’s proposed amendment to its Network Act, ostensibly focused on redressing defamatory deepfakes, reaches much further — and endangers tech cooperation,” wrote Sarah B. Rogers, State Department’s Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy.
“Deepfakes are understandably concerning, but it’s better to give victims civil remedies than give regulators invasive license for viewpoint-based censorship,” she added.
Later, the U.S. State Department issued an official statement expressing “significant concerns” about the law, warning that it could “negatively impact the business of U.S.-based online platforms and undermine free expression.”
The U.S. also urged South Korea to “not impose unnecessary barriers” on digital services, emphasizing its opposition to censorship while pledging to collaborate with Korea to maintain a free and open digital environment.
Korean media outlets highlighted a gap between Seoul and Washington, reflecting differing priorities: South Korea emphasizes the need to curb disinformation and online abuse, while the U.S. focuses on protecting freedom of expression and promoting market-based solutions.
Observers noted that the Korean law could threaten both freedom of expression and U.S. tech business interests, as major platforms like Google, Meta, and X are likely to fall under the law’s definition of “large platforms” and may face restrictions and penalties.
UNESCO Flags Censorship Risks
Days later, UNESCO, the primary U.N. agency promoting freedom of expression, press freedom, and journalists’ safety, expressed concerns over South Korea’s “anti-fake news” bill and warned that efforts to combat disinformation must not come at the expense of freedom of expression or press freedom, nor should they encourage censorship.
In a response to the Korea Times, UNESCO emphasized that journalism must remain free, independent, and pluralistic, and that journalists should be able to work “without fear of reprisals.”
“UNESCO is concerned by the recent trend of growing self-censorship worldwide,” a spokesperson told Korean news outlets, noting an increase in media self-censorship across the region.
“UNESCO stands ready to work with its member states to ensure that policies addressing mis- or disinformation comply with international standards on freedom of expression,” the spokesperson added.
Is Legal Action Enough to Tackle Disinformation?
The information and communications landscape includes a wide range of actors. Given that this virtual space faces numerous challenges, including misinformation and disinformation, addressing these issues should be a shared responsibility, requiring joint efforts from all stakeholders.
While legislation can be part of the solution, laws and punitive measures alone are insufficient to tackle the complex phenomenon of fake news. Broader, cross-sector strategies are needed, combining education, media literacy, responsible journalism, and fact-checking efforts.
Social platforms and various communication channels should also be part of this inclusive approach, implementing policies that counter misinformation while promoting media literacy, responsible online behavior, but also freedom of expression and press freedom.
Read More
Colombian President’s Speech Predates U.S. Operation in Venezuela
Video Does Not Show Recent Protests in Venezuela Over U.S. Capture of Maduro