Law or Coupang? ① Law states '30 days from receipt'...Coupang closes return window by its own standards
When a problem arises with a product ordered and paid for on Coupang, how far can consumers resolve it through Coupang? After tracking a children's product that the government ordered recalled as harmful, we found that notification to purchasers was handled within Coupang, but from that point on it became "the consumer's responsibility." The legal withdrawal period and Coupang's own return standards differed, and refunds had to be requested by providing account information to the seller instead of through the original payment method. News S will examine over three installments how consumer rights guaranteed by the E-commerce Law actually function within a large platform's system, why money and personal information move outside the platform in subsequent processes, and how far current law defines platform responsibility. Editor's Note
The E-commerce Law allows consumers to withdraw from contracts within 30 days of learning about problems with products delivered differently from contract terms, provided this is within 3 months of delivery. However, Coupang was found to block exchange and refund requests 30 days after purchase according to its own standards.
According to Coupang and the Fair Trade Commission on the 21st, purchasers of children's products sold on Coupang cannot request exchanges or refunds on Coupang if more than 30 days have passed since purchase, even if they receive a recall notice from the National Institute of Technology and Standards.
This is because Coupang's "30 days after purchase" standard differs from the withdrawal period stipulated in current E-commerce Law.
Article 17, Paragraph 3 of the E-commerce Law establishes a separate period distinct from general withdrawal rights when product content differs from representations or advertising, or when delivery fails to match contract terms.
In such cases, consumers may withdraw from the contract within 30 days of discovering or becoming aware of the discrepancy, provided this occurs within 3 months of delivery.
In this product case, the National Institute of Technology and Standards investigation detected lead exceeding safety standards, making it subject to a "collection and exchange order."
The purchaser had not yet reached 3 months since delivery and had not exceeded 30 days since receiving the recall notice from Coupang and learning of the safety standard non-compliance.
The withdrawal period stipulated by law remained available.
The procedure for returning payment after withdrawal is also specified in law.
Article 18, Paragraph 2 of the E-commerce Law stipulates refund obligations for withdrawals, defining "distance sales operators" to include "those who received payment from consumers or concluded distance sales contracts with consumers."
When goods are supplied, refunds of already-paid amounts must be issued within 3 business days of receiving the returned goods.
Processing methods are also established when payment is made through methods prescribed by law such as credit cards. Paragraph 3 of the same article stipulates that distance sales operators must request payment processors to suspend or cancel billing.
Provisions also exist for cases where multiple businesses are involved in the transaction.
Article 18, Paragraph 11 stipulates that when the distance sales operator, the recipient of payment for goods, and the party concluding the distance sales contract with consumers are not the same entity, they shall bear joint liability for fulfilling refund obligations resulting from withdrawal.
Nevertheless, on Coupang, regardless of when the recall was discovered, consumers could not request exchanges or returns because more than 30 days had passed since purchase. While the law guarantees a separate withdrawal period from the point of discovering product defects, Coupang's system provided no path to exercise this right, and collection and refund procedures were transferred entirely to sellers outside Coupang.
Separate from Coupang's role as a distance sales intermediary rather than direct seller, there are also obligations assigned to intermediaries.
Article 20, Paragraph 3 of the E-commerce Law stipulates that distance sales intermediaries must promptly take necessary measures such as identifying causes and damages to resolve consumer complaints and disputes arising from use of cyber malls.
Provisions for imposing sanctions exist for failure to fulfill such obligations.
Article 32 of the E-commerce Law allows the Fair Trade Commission to issue corrective orders against business operators that violate or fail to fulfill refund obligations under Article 18, intermediary obligations under Article 20, and other statutory obligations, including cessation of violations, performance of legal duties, and measures necessary for consumer damage prevention and relief.
Acts obstructing withdrawal are also separately prohibited. Article 21 of the E-commerce Law prohibits acts such as communicating false or exaggerated facts or using deceptive methods to obstruct consumer withdrawal requests, which can also be subject to corrective measures under Article 32.
Despite corrective measures, if violations are repeated or corrective orders are not complied with as specified in law, this can lead to business suspension.
Whether Coupang's operations violated these provisions in this case requires judgment by the Fair Trade Commission and others.
Coupang stated it had "no separate official response" regarding the difference between the E-commerce Law's withdrawal period and Coupang's exchange and return standards, the reasons for not providing a separate application path for recalled products, and refund responsibilities resulting from withdrawal.