Korea's Law Sets a 30-Day Review Hold but Leaves 'Malicious' to the Platforms

The Review Controls Six Platforms Walked Through

Korea’s Ministry of SMEs and Startups held a meeting in central Seoul on September 11 about star rating systems on online platforms. About 20 people attended, including six platforms, Naver, Kakao, Baemin, Coupang, Yeogi Eottae and Nol Universe, along with representatives of national associations for restaurant owners, lodging operators and small businesses.

The platforms presented the rating and review controls they already run. Some let business owners choose whether reviews are shown and how they are managed. After a set period, a review’s text and rating can no longer be edited, which keeps old reviews from being rewritten out of spite later. When an owner files a takedown report, a review can be hidden immediately for 30 days, or a review under a temporary measure can be left out of the store’s average rating.

The small business side brought two kinds of complaints. In one, a customer demands free service or compensation, is refused, and leaves a low rating. In the other, an account with no actual order or visit posts a fake review. Satisfied customers usually leave no review at all, they said, so a handful of malicious low ratings can pull a store’s overall score down sharply.

Owners Asked for Criteria and Process, the Ministry Offered Counsel and Evaluations

The small businesses asked for three things: objective criteria for separating legitimate reviews from malicious low ratings, enough procedure for owners to object and explain their side, and tougher sanctions on accounts that keep posting malicious reviews. They also pressed platforms to do more as neutral dispute mediators.

The ministry announced two forms of support. Small businesses harmed by ratings and reviews will be able to get legal consultations and dispute support from specialist lawyers through its unfair trade damage counseling center. It will also expand shared-growth evaluations in the online platform sector. Second Vice Minister Lee Byung-kwon, who chaired the meeting, said fair dispute resolution requires both parties to stand on equal footing, and that small businesses being hurt by a few malicious low ratings must be fixed. He asked the platforms to tighten their protection standards so legitimate consumer opinion and malicious rating attacks can be told apart more clearly.

The announcement included no new regulation or implementation schedule. Refining the criteria for what counts as a malicious rating stayed in the form of a request to the platforms.

The Provision Where the 30 Days Appear

The temporary measure and the 30 days the platforms mentioned are wording from Article 44-2 of Korea’s Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, known as the Network Act. Under paragraph 1, when information made public over a network infringes someone’s rights, such as through invasion of privacy or defamation, the person harmed can substantiate the infringement and ask the information and communications service provider to delete it or post a rebuttal. Paragraph 4 allows the provider to temporarily block access when it is hard to judge whether rights were infringed or a dispute between the parties is expected, and limits that period to 30 days. Article 44-3 lets a provider apply a temporary measure on its own, without any request, when it recognizes an infringement.

The provision assumes a rights infringement. It does not separately address whether a low score from a customer who was refused a freebie amounts to defamation or another infringement. What paragraph 4 sets is a ceiling on time: up to 30 days of hiding when a judgment is hard to make. That blank is exactly where the small businesses asked for objective criteria and where the vice minister asked platforms to fill in the gaps.

Where a Small Review Platform Should Look First

The provision applies to information and communications service providers, and it contains no threshold based on revenue or user numbers. Paragraph 5 requires providers to spell out the content and procedure of these measures in their terms in advance. Paragraph 6 states that a provider that takes the necessary measures can have its liability for resulting damages reduced or waived.

Teams building vertical platforms where merchant reviews drive transactions, such as booking, lodging or beauty, can use the controls described at this meeting as a baseline. Whether only customers with an order or visit record may review, whether edits are allowed only for a limited window, and whether reviews under a temporary measure count toward the average are choices better made while the service is being designed. Changing the rating formula after launch moves every existing store’s score at once and can start new disputes with merchants.

The opposite risk exists as well. A control that hides a review as soon as an owner reports it can bury legitimate criticism for 30 days. What the meeting discussed was a standard that protects legitimate consumer opinion while reducing harm from malicious reviews. If the criteria lean only one way, the trust of consumers who read reviews to pick a store can weaken.

Merchant Scores Go Into the Evaluation

The shared-growth evaluation the ministry wants to expand arrived on online platforms for the first time this year. Korea’s Commission for Corporate Partnership announced a pilot evaluation plan for finance, defense and online platforms on June 16. The online platform evaluation covers delivery platforms and open marketplaces. On July 9, the operators of Baemin and Coupang Eats, along with Shinhan Bank, which runs the delivery app Ttaengyeoyo, signed agreements with the commission. That came a year after an earlier attempt involving Baemin, Coupang Eats and Yogiyo fell apart at the last minute.

The pilot combines a 100-point satisfaction survey answered by merchant SMEs and small businesses with an assessment of each company’s partnership record. A commission official told Edaily that this year’s evaluation covers only those two parts, with eventual inclusion in the Shared Growth Index as the goal. Public materials do not say whether the survey asks how review or rating disputes are handled. The commission plans to finalize its indicators this year, run the survey and share the results with the participating companies.