Did Passage of the ‘Anti-False and Manipulated Information Act,’ Long Opposed by the U.S., Strike a Nerve?

Platform Regulation Fast-Tracked, U.S.-Bound Investment Commitments Delayed

Tariff Talks Stuck as U.S. Complains “Only Regulation Moves Fast”

The recent passage in the National Assembly of the so-called “Anti-False and Manipulated Information Act” (an amendment to the Information and Communications Network Act), which the United States has repeatedly taken issue with, is being cited as a key factor behind the latest stalemate in Korea-U.S. tariff negotiations. Washington is said to have voiced dissatisfaction that while South Korea is swiftly pushing through platform and digital regulation legislation, it is delaying follow-through on promises related to investment in the United States.

According to a government official on the 4th, the U.S. recently raised the point during trade consultations that “you quickly passed the amendment to the Information and Communications Network Act that we opposed, but why are you putting off the U.S.-bound investment commitments you promised?” The bill, which holds online platforms responsible for oversight when false information spreads, was fast-tracked late last month under the leadership of the Democratic Party of Korea, while legislation to underpin the implementation of U.S.-bound investment has not even been placed on the agenda of a National Assembly standing committee.

The U.S. views this amendment to the Information and Communications Network Act in the same vein as the Online Platform Act (the so-called Onpl Act) being pursued by the Korea Fair Trade Commission, as U.S. Big Tech companies such as Google and Meta are likely to fall within the scope of regulation. With discussions over possible sanctions involving Coupang adding to the mix, concerns are growing in U.S. political and policy circles that South Korea’s platform regulation is strengthening its ex ante regulatory character. The U.S. State Department also noted in its “FY 2026–2030 Strategic Plan,” released last month, that foreign governments’ legislation restricting freedom of expression could affect U.S. companies and Americans.

As the U.S. again turns to tariff hikes as a source of leverage, observers say it will be difficult to shift the negotiating dynamic with explanations alone that “there will be no discrimination against the United States.” Heo Jeong, a professor at Sogang University, said, “The U.S. places more weight than the government’s explanations on what laws have actually passed in the legislature,” adding, “We are past the stage where saying it’s a ‘misunderstanding’ will work.” He added that “rather than relying only on legislative discussions, the executive branch needs to use presidential authority to move forward with visible implementation of U.S.-bound investment, such as through enforcement decrees or administrative measures.”

Ha Ji-eun, hazzys@hankyung.com