The AI War Has Begun, but Korean Platforms Are Trapped by Regulation

In the era of AI (artificial intelligence), Korea's domestic platform industry has voiced concerns that "regulation alone won't ensure survival." The seminar on 'Strategic Tasks for Strengthening Platform Industry Competitiveness,' co-hosted by the Digital Platform Policy Forum, the Korea Internet Corporations Association, and the Korean Society of Information and Communication Law, was held on the 22nd at the Post Tower in Jung-gu, Seoul. Lee Kyung-sun, a researcher at the Korea Information Society Development Institute (KISDI), presented on 'The Value of Platforms in the AI Era and Policy Directions,' and Sun Ji-won, a professor at Hanyang University School of Law, spoke on 'Regulatory Issues Facing the Platform Industry and Improvement Measures,' with participants from academia, research institutions, the platform industry, and government joining the discussion.

Researcher Lee diagnosed that the center of gravity in AI competition has shifted from technology and model development to serviceization and revenue generation. "Competition is moving beyond how quickly AI capabilities can be secured to how they can be turned into services and how industrial value can be created," he explained.

The gap between global big tech and domestic platforms has also widened. The market capitalization gap between Alphabet and Naver grew from about 27 times in 2020 to 175 times this year, while the gap between Apple and Kakao widened from 71 times to 426 times over the same period.

Professor Sun Ji-won emphasized that platforms should be regulated based on specific conduct and effects, as well as actual harm to users, rather than their size. He pointed out that the scope of direct regulation of platforms is gradually expanding through the e-commerce law and other legislation enacted last July.

Ryu Je-myung, Second Vice Minister of Science and ICT, said in his congratulatory remarks, "We will supplement various institutional frameworks based on the principles and direction of responsible self-regulation." Flexible regulatory discussions that balance fostering the AI industry with protecting users are expected to shape policy direction.

At the seminar, participants called for a flexible regulatory framework that responds to actual anti-competitive conduct and user harm, rather than uniform ex-ante regulation, while encompassing both AI industry promotion and user protection.