The Fair Trade Commission (FTC) of South Korea today, Thursday, June 18, 2026, formally rejected self-correction proposals from the nation’s two dominant food delivery platforms, Baedal Minjok (commonly known as Baemin) and Coupang Eats. This pivotal decision clears the path for the imposition of substantial financial penalties, potentially reaching hundreds of billions of won, stemming from allegations of market dominance abuse.

The regulatory authority dismissed the companies’ applications for a consent decree, a legal mechanism that permits firms to resolve antitrust cases without admitting liability by proposing voluntary remedies. The FTC ruled that these proposals failed to satisfy the stringent legal requirements necessary to initiate such a settlement process, thereby pushing the long-running monopoly probe back into active deliberation.

This rejection signals an intensified regulatory stance against major tech platforms and underscores the FTC’s commitment to addressing alleged anti-competitive practices within the rapidly expanding digital economy. The decision sets the stage for a formal review to determine the illegality of the alleged practices and the precise scale of sanctions to be levied against both firms.

FTC Rejects Consent Decree Applications

On Thursday, June 18, 2026, the Fair Trade Commission announced its decision to reject the consent decree applications submitted by Woowa Brothers, the operator of Baemin, and Coupang, which operates Coupang Eats. A consent decree is a voluntary agreement between a government agency and a company under investigation, allowing the company to offer remedies to address alleged violations without a formal admission of guilt, thereby avoiding prolonged litigation.

The FTC concluded that the voluntary remedies proposed by Baemin and Coupang Eats were insufficient to restore fair market competition or provide adequate relief to affected restaurant owners. This determination means the antitrust watchdog will now resume its formal review process to thoroughly investigate the alleged anti-competitive behaviors and subsequently determine the final penalties.

The estimated fines facing Baemin range from 239 billion won (approximately 157 million USD) to 510 billion won. Coupang Eats faces potential fines estimated between 25 billion won and 42 billion won. These figures represent a significant financial burden for both companies, particularly given their recent operating profits.

Allegations of Anti-Competitive Practices Against Baemin

The FTC’s probe into Baemin, operated by Woowa Brothers, has focused on several alleged anti-competitive practices. A primary concern involves unfair treatment of affiliated partner restaurants, specifically through the imposition of most-favored-nation clauses.

According to the regulatory findings, Baemin allegedly coerced restaurants into accepting terms related to food prices, minimum order amounts, and discount coupons that were equivalent to or lower than those offered on rival applications. Restaurants that did not comply with these strict parity demands reportedly faced exclusion from premium free-delivery membership programs, such as Baemin Club.

Beyond pricing coercion, Baemin also faces specific allegations concerning deceptive advertising and search engine manipulation. The watchdog accuses the platform of actively favoring its proprietary ‘Baemin Delivery’ service over the merchant-led ‘Store Delivery’ option by expanding its premium exposure.

Furthermore, Baemin allegedly manipulated estimated delivery times on its main user interface, making its in-house delivery option appear artificially faster than store-led delivery. This calculated user interface design reportedly directed consumer orders away from independent delivery operators, compelling merchants to pay higher commission fees to the platform.

Coupang Eats Faces Scrutiny Over Bundling and Unfair Terms

Coupang Eats, a subsidiary of the e-commerce giant Coupang, is under similar scrutiny for alleged anti-competitive practices. The FTC’s investigation has highlighted unfair treatment of partner restaurants, mirroring some of the allegations against Baemin.

Coupang Eats allegedly forced restaurants to agree to terms regarding food prices, minimum order amounts, and discount coupons that matched or undercut those offered on competing apps. Restaurants that resisted these demands were reportedly excluded from premium free-delivery membership programs, including Coupang Wow.

A distinct area of concern for Coupang Eats involves how it integrates its food delivery platform with its broader online e-commerce ecosystem. The antitrust regulator is examining whether Coupang unfairly compelled consumers to adopt Coupang Eats through integrated software mechanisms, unified shopping app interfaces, and its highly popular Wow Membership program.

By tying retail shopping benefits with free food delivery, Coupang allegedly expanded its market share rapidly at the expense of smaller, independent rivals. This practice has prompted competitors and market watchdogs to raise serious monopolistic bundling concerns, which are a key focus of the ongoing investigation.

Financial Implications and Broader Regulatory Context

The rejection of the consent decree applications and the looming fines are expected to impose a substantial financial burden on both Baemin and Coupang. Woowa Brothers, Baemin’s operator, reported an operating profit of 592.9 billion won last year, while Coupang posted an operating profit of 679 billion won during the same period. The potential fines represent a significant portion of these profits, highlighting the severity of the regulatory action.

Woowa Brothers expressed regret over the rejection, stating that its consent decree application was intended to quickly restore competitive order and support small business owners. The company affirmed its commitment to engaging with restaurant owners and pursuing a win-win ecosystem. Coupang stated its intention to faithfully present and explain its position throughout the upcoming review process.

This decision by the FTC is part of a broader, escalating campaign by South Korean authorities to curb the influence of dominant e-commerce and delivery networks. Regulatory bodies are increasingly scrutinizing the market power of large digital platforms, reflecting a global trend in antitrust enforcement. For instance, similar concerns about App Store Anti-Competitive Practices have led to significant fines in other jurisdictions, demonstrating a worldwide focus on digital market fairness.

The FTC’s Chairman, Ju Biung-ghi, reiterated last month his willingness to take decisive regulatory action against market-dominant platforms. He noted that platform firms like Coupang and Baemin are conducting unfair activities that are widely seen as grave and complex, often linked with violations of diverse laws. This stance aligns with increasing global scrutiny on tech giants, as seen in various Data Privacy Enforcement actions and Artificial Intelligence Act Enters Full Enforcement Fining Companies in other regions.

The regulator’s aggressive stance underscores the massive scale of the food delivery ecosystem in South Korea, where Baemin and Coupang Eats collectively control over 90 percent of the market. This market concentration has led to numerous complaints from local merchants and consumers regarding the heavy-handed practices of these dominant platforms. The FTC’s actions are a clear signal that voluntary compromises are no longer sufficient to satisfy aggressive antitrust oversight in highly consolidated digital economies.

The outcome of this formal review will significantly influence the future competitive dynamics of South Korea’s advanced delivery market. Should the watchdog impose maximum fines and issue strict corrective orders, it could compel both Baemin and Coupang Eats to fundamentally alter their pricing structures, algorithm designs, and subscription bundling models. This structural shift could potentially create necessary breathing room for smaller, regional delivery competitors and restore negotiating power to local restaurant owners, fostering a more equitable digital marketplace.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a consent decree in the context of antitrust law?

A consent decree is a voluntary agreement between a government regulatory body, such as the Fair Trade Commission, and a company under investigation for alleged violations. It allows the company to propose remedies to address the allegations without formally admitting guilt, thereby potentially avoiding a lengthy and costly formal legal process and associated penalties.

Why did the FTC reject the self-correction proposals from Baemin and Coupang Eats?

The Fair Trade Commission rejected the proposals because it determined that the voluntary remedies offered by Baemin and Coupang Eats did not meet the legal requirements to initiate a settlement process. The FTC concluded that the proposed measures were insufficient to effectively restore fair market competition or provide adequate relief to the affected restaurant owners.