Law or Coupang? ③ Consumer Legal Rights Disappear on the Platform
When a problem arises with a product ordered and paid for on Coupang, how much can a consumer resolve through Coupang? Tracing a children's product that the government ordered recalled as harmful, we found that while identifying the buyer and notifying them of the recall occurred within Coupang, everything after that was "up to the consumer." The statutory cancellation period set by law differs from Coupang's own return standards, and refunds had to be made by providing account numbers to sellers rather than through existing payment methods. Suwon Ilbo examines in three parts how consumer rights guaranteed by e-commerce law actually operate within a major platform's system, why money and personal information move outside the platform in subsequent processing, and what extent current law stipulates the platform's responsibility. Editor's note
Although the E-Commerce Law guarantees consumer rights such as cancellation of contracts and refunds, the procedure for exercising these rights is designed by online commerce platforms themselves, which means rights guaranteed by law may not operate within the platform.
According to the Fair Trade Commission on the 23rd, Article 17, Paragraph 3 of the E-Commerce Law stipulates that consumers can cancel or withdraw from contracts if the content of goods differs from advertised or promised specifications, or if delivery differs from contractual terms, within 3 months from the date of receiving the goods or within 30 days from when they discovered or could have discovered such facts.
In this recall case, there was a difference between this statutory period and the platform's (communication sales intermediary's) own standards.
The buyer had received the product less than 3 months prior and had discovered the safety standard non-compliance less than 30 days ago. However, on Coupang, the exchange and refund request for the order was impossible, citing that 30 days had passed since purchase.
Although the statutory cancellation period set by law remained, the platform's pathway to exercise it closed first.
Refunds following cancellation and the platform's consumer protection obligations are also stipulated in law.
Article 18 of the E-Commerce Law stipulates refund obligations following cancellation, defining communication sales business operators as 'those who received payment for goods from consumers or those who concluded a communication sales contract with consumers.' In cases where payment was made by credit card or similar means, the law stipulates requesting the payment processor to suspend or cancel payment collection.
However, there is also an interpretation that Articles 17 and 18 may not apply to platforms.
Article 20, Paragraph 3 requires communication sales intermediaries to promptly take necessary measures to identify causes and damages and resolve consumer complaints or disputes arising from the use of cyber malls.
Acts that obstruct consumer contract cancellation are also prohibited. Article 21 prohibits providing false or exaggerated information or obstructing contract cancellation or termination through deceptive means, and Article 32 allows the Fair Trade Commission to issue corrective orders to cease violations and fulfill obligations, and to prevent and remedy consumer damage when obligations stipulated by law are violated or not fulfilled.
From contract cancellation to refunds, dispute resolution by communication sales intermediaries, and corrective measures for legal violations—consumer protection regulations are already in place.
The problem is whether rights written into law actually operate within the platform's system.
In online transactions, what consumers face is not the text of laws but buttons displayed in order history for exchanges and refunds. Even if the statutory cancellation period remains under law, if the platform makes the request impossible, consumers must separately contact customer service or take additional measures through relevant agencies.
While law grants rights to consumers, the actual entrance and pathway to exercise those rights are designed by the platform—this is the current reality.
Current law allows the Fair Trade Commission to issue corrective measures when violations of obligations or obstruction of contract cancellation are confirmed.
However, whether the platform's exchange and refund system itself can be examined to ensure it properly reflects the contract cancellation reasons and periods stipulated by law before consumers raise issues is a separate matter.
Particularly when a platform, like with government recall orders, recognizes a product defect and can identify target buyers, there are calls to distinguish from general return standards and reflect in the system a pathway through which consumers can exercise their legal rights.
A Fair Trade Commission official stated regarding this case, "In the case of government recalls, it appears to meet the requirements for contract cancellation, but various situations may exist regarding payment methods and payment flows, so we will need to verify the precise circumstances," adding "we will take action if legal violations are confirmed."
Loading comments…