US Raises Alarm Over South Korea’s Revised Network Law
The Trump administration has intensified criticism of South Korea’s recent revision to the Information and Communications Network Act, warning that the legislation targeting false and manipulated information could harm American technology companies and undermine freedom of expression. The dispute marks another point of tension between the two allies over digital regulations, with Washington characterizing Korea’s approach as a nontariff barrier in digital services.
U.S. Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers issued a sharp warning about the amendment in a social media post on Tuesday. She argued that while the law aims to address concerns about deepfakes and defamatory content, its reach extends far beyond those legitimate goals.
“South Korea’s proposed amendment to its Network Act, ostensibly focused on redressing defamatory deepfakes, reaches much further – and endangers tech cooperation,” Rogers wrote. “Deepfakes are understandably concerning, but it’s better to give victims civil remedies than give regulators an invasive license for viewpoint-based censorship.”
The revised bill was passed by the ruling Democratic Party of Korea-led National Assembly and approved at a Cabinet meeting last month. It is set to take effect in July.
The revised act seeks to curb the spread of illegal content across telecommunications networks, including manipulated or false information, while imposing tougher penalties for violations. Under the law, large platform operators are required to establish their own regulations against false information and take necessary measures such as removing such content and suspending the accounts of users who post it.
The legislation allows courts to impose damages of up to five times the proven harm when individuals knowingly and intentionally spread illegal or false manipulated information. It also permits large platform operators to take voluntary measures, including content removal, access restrictions, account suspensions, demonetization and service termination.
The law defines false information as content that is “wholly or partially untrue,” and manipulated information as content “altered in a way that could mislead audiences into believing it to be factual.”
A day after Rogers’ statement, a U.S. Department of State spokesperson provided a written statement to Korean reporters in the U.S., stating that Washington has “significant concerns” about the law’s revision. The spokesperson said the legislation “negatively impacts the business of U.S.-based online platforms and undermines free expression.”
Korea should avoid imposing “unnecessary barriers on digital services,” the spokesperson added, emphasizing that the U.S. opposes censorship and remains committed to working with Korea to promote a free and open digital environment.
Critics argue that these definitions lack clarity and could effectively leave determinations of truth to the government or related authorities – a concern echoed by the U.S. State Department’s reference to giving regulators “invasive license for viewpoint-based censorship.”
The U.S. response appears to reflect concerns that the law’s definition of “false or manipulated information” is overly broad or could be applied arbitrarily. Washington’s immediate public reaction to a domestic law passed by a close ally is rare, and in Korea’s case, represents the first instance of the U.S. government weighing in on the country’s internal legislation.
The U.S. statements come amid ongoing claims from Washington that Seoul is pursuing digital regulations that would discriminate against U.S. tech and platform companies such as Meta and Google. The U.S. has already taken issue with Korea’s attempt to impose network usage fees for American content providers such as Google and Netflix and regulate monopolistic online platforms to prevent unfair practices against small merchants.
Additionally, the U.S. has criticized Korea’s reluctance to export high-precision map data to overseas companies including Google. The U.S. has called these moves “nontariff barriers” – regulations that function like trade restrictions without using traditional tariffs.
A joint fact sheet on trade negotiations between the two countries, released in November, stated that the two countries “commit to ensure that U.S. companies are not discriminated against and do not face unnecessary barriers in terms of laws and policies concerning digital services, including network usage fees and online platform regulations.”
Last month, the U.S. State Department imposed visa restrictions on five EU officials involved in drafting the Digital Services Act (DSA), accusing them of having “organized efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize and suppress American viewpoints they oppose.”
The Korean law’s clauses were modeled after the EU’s DSA, which imposes hefty fines on social media platforms operating in Europe if they fail to control illegal content and false information. The original bill explicitly cited the DSA as a model, stating that it sought to “impose legal obligations on large platforms to ensure rapid responses to illegal and false information.”
Analysts say this approach clashes with Washington’s recent policy direction of pushing back forcefully against foreign regulations that could constrain U.S. tech firms. If platforms such as YouTube, X or Google face pressure to restrict content in Korea under the law, critics warn it could effectively curb the operations of U.S. companies.
The controversy over Korea’s network law comes at a time when the U.S. is increasingly concerned about what analysts call “non-tariff attacks” on American technology companies. These are discriminatory operational constraints and revenue extraction tools that precisely target leading U.S. tech companies, according to the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.
Foreign governments are deploying these new trade weapons against leading U.S. tech companies. Rather than legitimate taxes and regulations, they function as discriminatory operational constraints that extract resources, force technology transfers, and degrade competitive advantages without viable domestic alternatives to protect.
The Trump administration has sought to restore freedom of speech and end censorship in its digital policy approach. The recent criticisms of both EU and Korean regulations reflect this broader strategic shift.
Attention is now focused on whether the Trump administration will raise similar objections to Korea’s revised law, as its officials have reacted very sensitively to its digital service regulations. The U.S. has already demonstrated willingness to take action against foreign officials involved in drafting digital regulations it views as harmful to American interests.
Victor Cha, a Korean American political scientist and Korea chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told the JoongAng Ilbo that the recent U.S.-Korea joint fact sheet is intended to prevent legislation and regulation from being used as tools of market protectionism – an issue the Trump administration is clearly focused on.
Cha’s remarks suggest that the Korean law could run counter to the spirit of that agreement between the two countries.
The amendment also establishes a “Transparency Center” under the Korea Media and Communications Commission to support fact-checking efforts, which opposition parties have criticized as a “government-friendly monitoring body.”
Jang Sang-sik, head of trade trend analysis at the Korea International Trade Association, cautioned that policymakers should set clear, predictable rules consistent with global standards regarding the bill.
“I agree with the intent for the legislation to reduce consumer harm from false or manipulated information,” he said. “However, since it would also apply to global platforms operating in Korea, vague definitions or enforcement standards could lead Big Tech firms to over-self-censor or dampen digital cooperation, so ensuring procedural clarity and alignment with international norms is crucial.”
Experts note that the lack of clear definitions could force platforms to err on the side of caution, removing legitimate content to avoid potential penalties. This over-self-censorship could stifle legitimate expression and innovation while giving platforms an incentive to avoid controversial topics altogether.
The Korean law is also facing criticism from within the country. A controversial revision to South Korea’s Information and Communications Network Act, driven through the National Assembly by the ruling Democratic Party, is facing a growing backlash not only from conservatives but also from within the broader progressive camp.
Smaller progressive allies – including the Progressive Party, the Basic Income Party and the Social Democratic Party – either opposed the bill or abstained, warning that it could violate constitutional protections on freedom of expression.
“The criteria for judging what constitutes harm to the public interest are unclear,” Sohn Sol, senior spokesperson for the Progressive Party, said in a statement. “There is a serious risk the law could be abused as a tool to arbitrarily suppress speech critical of those in power.”
The United Nations is also reviewing a petition submitted by Korean civic groups regarding the law. A working group of lawyers and activists has requested that the UN special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression issue an urgent appeal to the Korean government.
UN officials responded that they are aware of the matter and are considering appropriate action. If special rapporteurs determine that the concerns are valid, they may send a formal letter to Seoul.
In 2021, a similar intervention by a UN rapporteur during controversy over revisions to Korea’s media arbitration law – which sought to impose a harsh fivefold increase in penalties on media outlets that released false or misleading news reports – contributed to the Democratic Party withdrawing the bill amid domestic and international criticism.
The main opposition People Power Party has said it would seek legal remedies, including filing a jurisdictional dispute with the Constitutional Court, calling the law “an unconstitutional gag order that suffocates liberal democracy.”
With the law set to take effect in July, several developments could shape its implementation. The UN special rapporteur may issue findings that pressure the Korean government to reconsider or amend the law. Domestic legal challenges could reach the Constitutional Court. And U.S. diplomatic pressure could intensify if the Trump administration determines the law violates commitments Korea made regarding digital trade barriers.
Supporters of the law argue the measures are necessary to dismantle profit-driven fake news operations and protect the public from harmful misinformation. Democratic Party leader Jung Cheong-rae said “irresponsible freedoms that fuel chaos and profit from malicious agitation cannot be left unchecked.”
However, the growing international and domestic criticism suggests the law may face significant implementation challenges. The U.S.-Korea relationship remains strong on security issues, but digital trade disputes have emerged as a new source of friction between the allies.
The U.S. has long criticized the EU’s Digital Services Act, enacted in 2022, which allows authorities to impose fines on platforms that fail to curb illegal content, hate speech and misinformation. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio criticized the banned officials’ efforts to “coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize and suppress American viewpoints they oppose.”
The dispute over Korea’s network law comes as the U.S. is developing what analysts call a “techno-nationalist” policy approach. This trend involves viewing technological interdependence with certain countries as a threat to American security, prosperity, and values. Concerns include potential leverage for espionage, disinformation, surveillance, and economic competition.
South Korea has earned a reputation as a leading global information and communication technology center. With its cutting-edge ICT infrastructure boasting the world’s fastest internet speeds and tech-savvy customers, the country is home to global leading electronics and IT companies such as Samsung Electronics, SK Hynix, LG Electronics and Naver.
However, the country faces challenges in balancing digital innovation with regulatory control. South Korea was hit by a daily average of 1.2 million hacking attempts in 2022 according to a report published by the National Intelligence Service. This high degree of network connectedness, combined with significant intellectual property, has made the country a prime target for cyberattacks.
Cybersecurity and data protection are legitimate concerns for any government. The question raised by critics of Korea’s network law is whether the approach strikes the right balance between addressing these concerns and preserving fundamental freedoms and open digital markets.
Key Points
- The Trump administration has criticized South Korea’s revised Information and Communications Network Act, warning it harms American tech giants and undermines free expression
- U.S. Under Secretary of State Sarah Rogers said the law gives regulators “invasive license for viewpoint-based censorship”
- The Korean law targets false and manipulated information, allowing courts to impose damages up to five times the harm and enabling platform operators to remove content and suspend accounts
- Critics argue the law’s definitions of “false” and “manipulated” information are overly broad and could lead to arbitrary enforcement
- The law was modeled after the EU’s Digital Services Act, which the U.S. has also criticized
- Last month, the U.S. imposed visa restrictions on five EU officials involved in drafting the DSA
- The dispute comes amid broader U.S.-Korea tensions over digital regulations, including network usage fees and data export restrictions
- A joint fact sheet from November committed both countries to ensuring U.S. companies face “no unnecessary barriers” in digital services
- The law also faces domestic opposition in Korea, including from progressive parties warning it could be abused to suppress political speech
- The UN is reviewing a petition about the law from Korean civic groups
- The law takes effect in July, leaving time for potential amendments, legal challenges, or diplomatic negotiations
