A prominent U.S. think tank has released a study showing that the average penalty imposed by the Korea FTC penalties system on U.S. companies over the past decade is 21 times higher than that on Korean companies, suggesting the U.S. administration conduct a broad investigation under Section 301 of the Trade Act.
The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) stated in a report released on the 19th (local time) that between January 2016 and December 2025, the average penalty imposed by the Korea Fair Trade Commission on U.S. companies was approximately 39 billion won, which is 21 times higher than the overall Korean company average of about 1.9 billion won. The report explained that the average penalty for foreign companies excluding the U.S. was about 2.4 billion won, making the U.S. average 16.6 times higher than theirs.
The report, titled ‘Korea’s Competition Law Constraints on U.S. Innovative Companies,’ analyzed 3,157 penalty data points issued by the FTC during the period. The total amount of the analyzed penalties is approximately 6.6875 trillion won in nominal terms and about 7.5966 trillion won in real terms, reflecting inflation adjusted to 2025 values. The report also categorized and compared four major groups—Samsung, SK, Hyundai Motor, and LG—and their affiliates as ‘chaebol companies,’ and the rest as ‘non-chaebol companies.’
Disproportionate Fines for U.S. Corporations
As a result, the average penalty for Korean chaebol companies was about 14 billion won. Even when limited to chaebol companies, the U.S. company average was 2.8 times higher than theirs.
Most of the penalties against U.S. companies were accounted for by a small number of market dominance abuse cases. Two violations by Qualcomm in 2017 (approx. 1.2 trillion won), one each by Google in 2021 and 2023 (approx. 300 billion won), and the unfair trade practices penalty imposed on Coupang in 2024 (approx. 166 billion won) accounted for 96.5% of the total penalties against U.S. companies during the analysis period, which totaled about 1.76 trillion won.
Regulatory Impact and Trade Concerns
The report argued that such regulatory burdens could diminish the competitiveness of U.S. companies. “Amid ongoing technological competition with China, situations must not arise where U.S. tech companies divert manpower and capital intended for innovation to comply with discriminatory and extractive regulatory policies,” it stated. In this regard, the report emphasized that while the share of penalties imposed on foreign companies accounted for by U.S. firms exceeded 81%, the share for Chinese companies was less than 1%.
ITIF is a non-partisan think tank with recognized credibility in Congress. Last July, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee released a so-called ‘Coupang Report,’ citing previous ITIF analyses to support claims that Korea’s platform legislation and cloud security certifications discriminate against U.S. companies.
The report also expressed concern that the ‘Online Platform Fairness Act,’ currently under discussion in the Korean National Assembly, which allows separate regulations to be applied to online platforms exceeding certain sales thresholds, “could lead to de facto discrimination against major U.S. tech companies during the enforcement process.”
ITIF argued that this analysis “supports the need for a broader Section 301 investigation into Korea’s regulations and enforcement.” Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act allows for retaliatory actions such as imposing tariffs against unfair or discriminatory foreign trade practices. The report suggested that the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) should first demand behavioral changes from Korea through a Section 301 investigation, and if there is no change, “take retaliatory action beyond tariffs, such as imposing fees on Korean services or suspending other trade benefits.”
In response, an FTC official stated, “We are enforcing the law without discrimination regardless of corporate nationality.” Penalties are calculated based on related sales and the severity of the violation, and the high average penalty for U.S. companies is due to a small number of large-scale sanction cases, such as Qualcomm, the official explained.
