Recently, as deepfake crimes exploiting artificial intelligence (AI) technology have combined with the indiscriminate exposés of so-called "cyber wreckers," the scale of damage from false and manipulated information and the speed of its spread have grown to a degree incomparable to the past. While victims suffer blows that are difficult to recover from, perpetrators have repeatedly reaped enormous view counts and advertising revenue through sensational false information. The damages awarded after years of litigation fell short of the profits gained from the crimes, and there was not even a legal basis to hold large platforms—the channels for spreading such information—accountable. Critics both inside and outside the National Assembly have consistently pointed out that this has effectively resulted in illegal conduct being left unchecked.
Against the backdrop of such concerns, an amendment to the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Information and Communications Network Act), commonly known as the "Disinformation Eradication Act," takes effect on the 7th. The amendment contains institutional mechanisms to strengthen accountability for the distribution of false and manipulated information and to enhance the effectiveness of victim relief. There are three key elements.
First, the introduction of the concept of "false and manipulated information." The amended law defines false and manipulated information as ① false information and ② manipulated information (information altered to make its content be mistaken as fact), and prohibits distributing false and manipulated information with the intent to cause harm to others or the purpose of obtaining unjust gain. The distribution of false and manipulated information resulting from simple mistakes or negligence, as well as satire and parody, are excluded from regulation.
Second, the strengthening of liability for damages. The amended law recognizes liability for damages when a person intentionally or negligently distributes illegal information (false facts, hate speech information) or false and manipulated information, thereby causing harm to others. In particular, when damage is recognized but calculating a specific amount is difficult, the court may recognize a reasonable amount of damages within a range of 50 million won, based on a comprehensive consideration of the overall purport of the arguments and the results of evidence examination.
Furthermore, aggravated liability applies to "posters" (YouTubers, influencers, media outlets, etc.) who convey facts or opinions to an unspecified number of people as their business and who meet the standards set by presidential decree. If they ① knew that the information was illegal information or false and manipulated information, ② had the intent to cause harm to others or the purpose of obtaining unjust gain, and ③ actually caused an infringement of the victim's legal interests, the court may set the amount of compensation within a range of up to five times the recognized damages. However, these aggravated liability provisions do not apply to information for the public interest, such as matters related to public interest reporting and public interest concerns, and exception provisions have been established to allow exemption when there were reasonable grounds to believe the content was true and it was for the public interest at the time of distribution.
In addition, a penalty surcharge of up to 1 billion won may be imposed for distributing, two or more times, illegal information or false and manipulated information for which a guilty verdict, a damages ruling, or a ruling on a request for correction has been finalized by a court or other body. This operates as an administrative sanction separate from civil liability for damages—a dual pressure mechanism imposed on repeat offenders.
Third, the imposition of active management obligations on large platform operators. Large information and communications service providers with a daily average of 1 million or more users must, upon receiving a report of illegal or false and manipulated information, immediately notify the reporter and take preemptive measures such as deletion, access blocking, exposure restriction, account suspension, and advertising revenue restriction. They are also obligated to establish self-operation policies and to publish transparency reports on a semiannual basis.
Views of both hope and concern intersect over this amendment to the Information and Communications Network Act.
The most positively evaluated aspect is that it can strongly curb the business model of "cyber wreckers" who have generated revenue through malicious false information. Previously, even if perpetrators gained enormous economic benefits through sensational videos, the consolation money victims received through civil litigation fell far short of the criminal profits. However, with the introduction of punitive damages and a system of large penalty surcharges, effective sanctions have become possible against the act of making money by damaging others' reputations.
It is also encouraging that reporting and action obligations have been imposed on large platforms, the key channels for the spread of information. If the initial spread of online defamation or fake news cannot be stopped, it spreads uncontrollably, making it virtually impossible to recover from the damage. By imposing report reception and action obligations on large information and communications service providers, a basis has been established for promptly responding to malicious rumors in the early stages of their spread.
Nevertheless, there are also concerns surrounding this amendment. The most significant issue is that the criteria for judging false and manipulated information include subjective elements such as "intent" and "unjust purpose," creating the potential for conflict with freedom of expression. Critics point out that it is ambiguous to what extent reporting that selectively chooses certain facts or critical content will be assessed as manipulation, which could lead to self-censorship among the press and creators.
Another important challenge is how the punitive damages structure will operate within Korea's civil litigation system. While the expanded discretion in calculating damages and the provision for up to fivefold compensation have the effect of strengthening victim protection, critics also point out that they could have a chilling effect on freedom of expression.
Such concerns are not confined to the domestic sphere. As this law applies equally to overseas platforms operating in Korea, such as Google, Meta, and X, the U.S. State Department expressed concern late last year through a spokesperson's statement, citing damage to freedom of expression and unnecessary trade barriers. This is a point that must be considered given the possibility that broadcasting and media regulation could spill beyond the domestic political landscape to become a variable in Korea-U.S. trade negotiations.
Protecting individuals from false information is a task essential to a democratic society. In particular, as the center of information production and distribution rapidly shifts from traditional media to one-person media based on YouTube and social media, a legal system reflecting this changed environment is absolutely necessary. However, if freedom of expression is also curtailed in the process, it could give rise to another social cost. Ultimately, the success of this amendment to the Information and Communications Network Act will be determined by how precisely it harmonizes the two constitutional values of regulating false information and freedom of expression.
