Pull to refresh
Logo
What Changed
Following Why Sign Up
South Korea fines delivery apps for forcing restaurants into price parity

South Korea fines delivery apps for forcing restaurants into price parity

Rule Changes

The Fair Trade Commission ordered Baemin and Coupang Eats to stop requiring restaurants to match rival terms, with combined penalties near 632 billion won.

Today: Fines announced publicly

Overview

Updated 1 hour ago

South Korea's antitrust regulator fined the country's two largest food-delivery apps a combined 631.9 billion won on Nov. 9. Woowa Brothers, which runs Baemin, must pay 331.1 billion won; Coupang, which runs Coupang Eats, must pay 300.8 billion won.

The Fair Trade Commission said both companies required restaurants to offer terms at least as good as those on rival apps. Those clauses, known as most-favored-nation requirements, let the platforms lock in high commissions and menu prices across the market. Together the two apps handled more than 90% of Korean delivery orders by value in 2025.

Why it matters

If upheld, the ruling lets Korean restaurants set different menu prices and minimum orders on each delivery app, weakening the grip Baemin and Coupang Eats hold on the market.

Questions about this story

Free account needed to ask — your question is kept and asked for you right after sign-up. Answers are public.

No questions yet — be the first to ask.

Key Indicators

$466M
Combined fine
Total penalties against Woowa Brothers and Coupang, about 631.9 billion won.
₩331.1B
Baemin fine
Includes 160.2 billion won for price-parity demands, 155.4 billion for forced delivery-model switching, and 15.4 billion for misleading delivery-time ads.
₩300.8B
Coupang Eats fine
All of it tied to most-favored-nation requirements enforced from July 2023 to January 2026.
92.9%
Combined market share
Baemin 58.45% and Coupang Eats 34.44% of Korean delivery orders by value in 2025.
94%
Restaurants in Coupang's Wow program
Share of partner restaurants holding Wow status by October 2025, up from 13% in July 2023.

Voices

Curated perspectives — historical figures and your fellow readers.

Sign up to generate historical perspectives on this story.

Log in Sign Up

People Involved

JB
Joo Byung-ki
Chairman, Korea Fair Trade Commission
Led the commission that issued the fines
 Bom Kim
Bom Kim
Founder and CEO, Coupang
Company says it will challenge the fine through legal channels

Organizations Involved

Korea Fair Trade Commission
Korea Fair Trade Commission
National antitrust regulator
Issued fines and corrective orders; decisions subject to appeal

Korea's competition authority, responsible for enforcing the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act.
WB
Woowa Brothers (Baemin)
Food-delivery platform operator
Fined 331.1 billion won; expected to appeal

Operator of Baemin, Korea's largest food-delivery app.
Coupang
Coupang
E-commerce Company
Fined 300.8 billion won; says it will challenge the penalty

Operator of Coupang Eats, Korea's second-largest food-delivery app.

Timeline

May 2019 November 2026

12 events Latest: Today Showing 8 of 12
Tap a bar to jump to that date

  1. Fines announced publicly

    Today Announcement

    The commission publishes the decision; both companies say they will review it and consider appeals.

  2. Commission decides fines

    Regulatory decision

    The commission votes to fine Baemin 331.1 billion won and Coupang 300.8 billion won.

  3. Coupang ordered to revise fee clause

    Regulatory order

    The commission says calculating commissions on pre-discount prices is unfair.

  4. Wow restaurant share reaches 94%

    Market data

    Compliance with Coupang's price-parity terms rises from 13% in July 2023.

  5. Regulator forms delivery-app task force

    Investigation

    The Fair Trade Commission creates a dedicated team to investigate delivery-app practices.

  6. Baemin merges marketplace and own-delivery storefronts

    Product change

    The integration removes restaurants' control over minimum orders and delivery terms.

  7. Baemin raises own-delivery commission

    Pricing change

    Commission rises from 6.8% to 9.8% as Baemin shifts costs toward own delivery.

  8. Baemin begins price-parity enforcement

    Antitrust conduct

    Baemin limits Baemin Club delivery discounts to restaurants meeting its terms.

  9. Baemin starts suppressing marketplace listings

    Antitrust conduct

    Baemin reduces marketplace visibility and later merges storefronts to push restaurants onto own delivery.

  10. Coupang begins price-parity enforcement

    Antitrust conduct

    Coupang strips Wow restaurant status from restaurants that do not match rival terms.

  11. Baemin adds its own delivery service

    Product launch

    Baemin introduces own-delivery alongside its lower-commission marketplace model.

  12. Coupang Eats enters the delivery market

    Market entry

    Coupang launches food delivery, charging restaurants higher commissions than Baemin.

Scenarios

1

Companies appeal and the fines are cut or overturned

Possible Resolves by End of 2027

Discussed by: Coupang's public statement; Yonhap News Agency

Both companies say they will review the written decision and challenge it through legal channels. Coupang has already argued the penalty is disproportionate and that the commission included unrelated restaurant sales in its calculation. A court could reduce the fine, remand the case, or overturn the market-dominance finding.

2

Fines upheld and restaurants regain pricing freedom

Likely Resolves by Q2 2027

Discussed by: Korea Fair Trade Commission

If the decision stands, the commission's corrective orders require both platforms to remove price-parity clauses from restaurant contracts. Restaurants could then set different menu prices and minimum orders on each app, and smaller delivery platforms could compete on lower commissions.

3

Regulator reopens Coupang's membership-bundling case

Uncertain Resolves by Q2 2027

Discussed by: Korea Fair Trade Commission

The commission ordered a reexamination of a separate case alleging Coupang improperly tied delivery benefits to its Wow streaming membership. It cited disagreement over how to define the primary and tied products. A new decision could add penalties or clear Coupang.

Historical Context

3 moments from history that rhyme with this story — and how they unfolded.

2012-2013

United States v. Apple (e-books) (2013)

The U.S. Department of Justice sued Apple and five publishers, alleging they conspired to raise e-book prices. Apple's contracts with publishers included most-favored-nation clauses that guaranteed Apple the lowest retail price.

Then

Judge Denise Cote ruled in 2013 that Apple had orchestrated a price-fixing conspiracy. Apple appealed and lost; the Supreme Court declined to hear the case in 2016.

Now

Apple paid a $450 million settlement. The case established that most-favored-nation clauses can be evidence of anticompetitive coordination, not just standard contract terms.

Why this matters now

Korea's commission reached a similar conclusion: price-parity clauses used by dominant platforms can produce collusion-like effects even without direct communication between competitors.

2015-2018

European Commission v. Google (Android) (2018)

The European Commission fined Google 4.34 billion euros for requiring phone makers to pre-install Google Search and Chrome as a condition of licensing the Play Store. The commission said the practices foreclosed rival search engines and browsers.

Then

Google appealed to the EU General Court, which largely upheld the fine in 2022 but reduced it slightly.

Now

The case became a template for regulating how dominant platforms bundle services and set terms for business partners.

Why this matters now

It shows how competition authorities treat platform rules that look like ordinary contract terms but function as barriers to rivals.

2020-2022

EU Digital Markets Act (2022)

The European Union adopted rules designating large online platforms as gatekeepers and banning certain conduct in advance, including anti-steering rules and self-preferencing.

Then

The law took effect in 2024, with the first compliance reviews and investigations opening that year.

Now

It shifted enforcement from case-by-case antitrust suits to ex ante rules for designated platforms.

Why this matters now

Korea's case is still retrospective enforcement. The ruling could build momentum for similar ex ante rules covering delivery apps.

Sources

(6)
Korea Fair Trade Commission Yonhap News Agency MLex Financial News YTN BusinessKorea