South Korea has imposed a fine of approximately $220 million on e-commerce company Coupang over allegations that it misused its strong position in the food delivery market and restricted competition among delivery platforms.
The Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC), the country’s competition regulator, decided to impose a penalty of 300.8 billion won, equivalent to around $220.59 million. The action concerns Coupang’s food delivery business, Coupang Eats.
At the centre of the case is the company’s alleged demand that restaurants listed on its platform should not offer better prices or more favourable conditions on competing delivery apps.
Why has Coupang been fined?
The regulator found that Coupang required restaurants to maintain prices and certain trading conditions on its platform at levels that were not less favourable than those offered through rival apps.
Such conditions are commonly known as most-favoured-nation (MFN) clauses. In simple terms, these rules can prevent a restaurant from offering a lower price or a better discount on another platform.
The regulator said Coupang used its position in the market to influence how restaurants set prices, minimum order amounts and discounts.
Restaurants that did not follow the conditions risked losing certain benefits on Coupang Eats, including access to promotional arrangements linked to its membership programme.
The regulator concluded that these practices limited the freedom of restaurant owners and made it harder for competing delivery platforms to attract customers through better prices and offers.
How did the rules affect restaurants?
Food delivery platforms compete to attract customers by offering discounts, lower delivery charges and special deals. Restaurants also use different apps to reach more customers.
However, if a restaurant is required to maintain similar prices and offers across all platforms, it has less freedom to provide special discounts on a competing app.
This can weaken competition between delivery companies. Smaller platforms may find it difficult to attract customers if restaurants cannot offer them better prices or promotional deals.
The issue is also important for small restaurants, which often depend on delivery apps to reach customers beyond their local areas.
South Korea’s wider action against delivery platforms
The action against Coupang comes amid broader scrutiny of South Korea’s food delivery industry.
The country’s competition regulator has also taken action against Baedal Minjok, commonly known as Baemin, another major food delivery platform.
Both companies have faced penalties over practices involving demands for similar prices and trading conditions across competing apps. The decisions reflect growing regulatory concern about the influence of major digital platforms over restaurants and smaller competitors.
The Coupang penalty is part of this wider effort to protect competition and ensure that businesses can make independent decisions about their prices and commercial offers.
What could happen next?
The decision could increase pressure on major food delivery platforms to review their agreements with restaurants.
Companies operating in the sector may need to ensure that restaurants are free to set different prices, discounts and minimum order amounts across different apps, subject to applicable rules.
The case may also draw attention to how membership benefits and promotional programmes are designed, particularly when they influence the choices available to restaurants.
Analysis
The fine highlights a growing challenge in the digital economy: when a platform becomes powerful enough, its business rules can influence not only customers but also the businesses that depend on it.
For restaurants, the freedom to offer different prices and discounts on different apps can be an important way to manage costs and attract customers. If that freedom is restricted, smaller platforms may also struggle to compete.
For consumers, the long-term impact could be significant. More competition can create opportunities for better discounts, delivery options and service quality. However, the final effect on food prices will depend on how platforms and restaurants respond to the regulator’s decision.
The case sends a clear message that a strong market position does not give a company unlimited control over the commercial choices of businesses using its platform.
