South Korea's Fair Trade Commission announced this Monday (9) provisional administrative fines totaling 631.9 billion won against the operators of the delivery apps Baemin and Coupang Eats. According to the agency, the companies abused their dominant position by imposing commercial conditions that restricted competition between platforms.
The decision was made on October 29, 2026, but officially announced on November 9. Woowa Brothers, which operates Baemin, received a preliminary penalty of 331.1 billion won, while Coupang, operator of Coupang Eats, was provisionally fined 300.8 billion won. The regulator also ordered corrective measures.
Restaurants were pressured to match offers from competing apps
The investigation identified requirements known as most-favored-nation clauses. In practice, restaurants were pressured to offer the platforms conditions equal to or better than those available on rival apps, limiting their freedom to set prices and promotions.
In the case of Coupang Eats, the requirements covered six commercial conditions, including dish prices, minimum orders, discounts, delivery fees charged to consumers, number of items on the menu and operating hours.
Establishments that did not comply with these conditions could lose access to benefits intended for subscribers to the Wow program. According to the regulator, the proportion of participating restaurants that met the requirements went from approximately 13% in July 2023 to 94% in October 2025.
Baemin also conditioned benefits of its subscription program on matching prices, discounts and minimum order amounts. In addition, the authority held Woowa responsible for practices that favored its own delivery service to the detriment of alternative methods and for advertising considered misleading about delivery estimates.
The two companies disputed the findings. Coupang called the fine excessive, questioned the inclusion of revenues in calculating the penalty and announced that it intends to appeal in court. Woowa said its practices were not illegal, regretted that its arguments had not been fully accepted and said it would review the decision.
The amounts disclosed are still provisional and correspond to administrative sanctions, not criminal convictions.
