Business · Companies · 12 hrs ago
South Korea fines Baedal Minjok and Coupang Eats over competition rules
South Korea fined Baedal Minjok and Coupang Eats a combined 631.9 billion won, about 331.1 billion and 300.8 billion won respectively.
The Fair Trade Commission said the food delivery platforms used benefits to demand equal terms from restaurants across rival apps, restricting competition over prices and fees.
Baedal Minjok is operated by Woowa Brothers, while Coupang Eats is run by Coupang.
Both companies say they did not break the law and plan to review the regulator's final written decision before choosing their next steps.
Coupang Eats also disputes how its fine was calculated, while Baedal Minjok faces penalties over reducing the visibility of some restaurant listings and displaying inaccurate delivery estimates.
The fines are the largest combined penalty in a delivery-app case by South Korea's regulator; a separate allegation that Coupang bundled its Wow membership with the service will be reviewed again.
South Korea’s Fair Trade Commission decided to fine Baemin’s operator Woowa Brothers 331.1 billion won and Coupang Eats’ operator Coupang 300.8 billion won.
The combined fines total 631.9 billion won, the largest total imposed in a delivery-app case by the commission.
The commission said the companies used benefits for participating restaurants to demand terms equal to those offered on competing apps, harming competition on fees and prices.
Both companies dispute the commission’s findings and say they will decide on further action after reviewing its written decision.
The commission also ordered a further review of allegations that Coupang tied its Wow membership to other services.
- Who
- Woowa Brothers, which operates Baemin, and Coupang, which operates Coupang Eats.
- What
- The companies are challenging fines of 331.1 billion won and 300.8 billion won, respectively.
- When
- The Fair Trade Commission announced its decision on November 9, 2026.
- Where
- South Korea.
- Why
- The commission said the companies used benefits for participating restaurants to demand terms matching those on competing apps, hindering competition. Both companies dispute the findings.
South Korea’s Fair Trade Commission
Woowa Brothers and Coupang
Conduct
South Korea’s Fair Trade Commission
The commission said the companies used benefits for participating restaurants to demand terms equal to those on competing apps, hindering competition on fees and prices.
Woowa Brothers and Coupang
The companies dispute the commission’s findings; Woowa Brothers said it had explained that the conduct was not unlawful.
Coupang Eats’ Wow Store policy
South Korea’s Fair Trade Commission
The commission said the companies’ policies were used to demand matching terms from restaurants.
Woowa Brothers and Coupang
Coupang Eats said the policy offered consumers reasonable prices and free delivery and helped participating merchants increase sales.
Fines
South Korea’s Fair Trade Commission
The commission imposed fines of 331.1 billion won on Woowa Brothers and 300.8 billion won on Coupang.
Woowa Brothers and Coupang
Coupang Eats said the fine was disproportionate to a past similar case and that the calculation included delivery revenue unrelated to the allegations.
The Fair Trade Commission decided to fine Woowa Brothers 331.1 billion won and Coupang 300.8 billion won.
Woowa Brothers and Coupang Eats objected to the decision and said they would review the written ruling before deciding on further action.
- Woowa Brothers fine
- 331.1 billion won
- Coupang fine
- 300.8 billion won
- Combined fines
- 631.9 billion won
- Commission’s finding
- Restaurants were required to match terms offered on competing apps
- Coupang Eats market share
- 7% when the policy was introduced
- Past comparable fine cited by Coupang Eats
- 468 million won
3 sources
What people are saying
We have sincerely explained that there was no illegality in this matter.
At the time the policy was introduced, our market share was only 7% as a latecomer, and there were no cases in which a contract was terminated because a store owner failed to meet the price conditions.