[Editorial] The Coupang Case: Uphold the Rule of Law, but Prevent a Rift With an Ally

Even a White House official in the United States has voiced concern, saying that the South Korean government is targeting Coupang. Earlier, the House Judiciary Committee also released an interim report claiming that the South Korean government was selectively attacking U.S. companies, including Coupang. It is never desirable for allegations involving a single company’s legal violations to escalate into an issue between allies. The government should respond to excessive claims from the United States with facts and principles, while handling the case firmly. At the same time, it must use its diplomatic leverage to prevent the matter from spilling over into other issues in South Korea–United States relations.
The starting point of the Coupang case is clear. The Personal Information Protection Commission (PIPC) determined that 37.55 million people’s personal data had been leaked because Coupang failed to meet its security obligations, and imposed the largest fine in its history. At its core, this is a serious security incident in which personal information belonging to most of the population was exposed. Moreover, it has not yet been clearly confirmed where the leaked information ended up. It is only natural for the government to conduct a strict investigation and impose sanctions.
The stance taken by the U.S. Congress and the White House is excessive in some respects. The House Judiciary Committee report did not sufficiently reflect the South Korean government’s explanation or the reality of consumer harm. It is understandable for the U.S. government to defend the interests of its own companies. But portraying South Korea’s legitimate law enforcement over a massive personal data leak as discriminatory regulation is neither respectful to an ally nor consistent with the rule of law. What is more, controversy is growing after disclosure of President Trump’s stock trading history in Coupang and the fact that key U.S. trade and diplomatic officials previously received compensation related to Coupang. The U.S. side should first explain any potential conflicts of interest transparently.
The South Korean government should respond calmly and firmly. Coupang is headquartered in the United States and listed on the New York stock market. The government needs to systematically organize the investigation process, the legal basis, the method used to calculate the fine, and examples of sanctions against domestic and foreign companies, then actively explain them to the U.S. government, Congress, media, and investors.
Above all, the Coupang case must not cast a shadow over discussions on security and nuclear cooperation between South Korea and the United States. The two countries are currently pursuing follow-up talks on nuclear-powered submarines, uranium enrichment, and spent nuclear fuel reprocessing. With defense and other strategic cooperation also at stake, a personal data leak case should not become a variable that obscures major bilateral issues. President Lee Jae-myung is scheduled to visit Ankara, Türkiye, to attend the NATO summit. Since President Trump will also be there, it is difficult to rule out the possibility that the Coupang case could come up during bilateral contacts at the multilateral gathering. The government should clearly explain the legitimacy of enforcing domestic law, while carefully managing the issue so it does not expand into a diplomatic dispute between the two countries.
Coupang must also show responsibility. It is within a company’s rights to challenge a fine or an investigation through legal procedures. However, a company responsible for a massive personal data leak should not appear to be mobilizing U.S. politics to pressure the South Korean government. What Coupang should do first is disclose the circumstances of the leak and the scale of the damage transparently, while presenting effective measures to prevent a recurrence and protect victims. The Coupang case is not about a company’s nationality. It is about personal data protection and equality before the law. The government must defend the legitimacy of law enforcement while responding with precision so that the broader alliance is not needlessly shaken.