[Law vs. Coupang?] ① Law stipulates 'within 30 days of discovery'…Coupang closes return window by its own standards
When a product ordered and paid for on Coupang has a problem, how far can consumers resolve it through Coupang? After tracing a children's product that the government ordered recalled as harmful, it was found that notifying buyers and alerting them about the recall occurred within Coupang, but after that it was "up to the consumer." The contract withdrawal period set by law differed from Coupang's own return standards, and consumers had to provide their bank account information to sellers instead of receiving refunds through the original payment method. Suwon Ilbo will examine over three installments how consumer rights guaranteed by the E-commerce Law actually function within large platform systems, why money and personal information move outside the platform during subsequent processing, and how far current law defines platform responsibilities. —Editor's Note
The E-commerce Law allows consumers to withdraw contracts within 3 months from the date of supply and within 30 days of discovering products have been provided differently than contracted, but Coupang has been found to block exchange and refund requests on its own 30-day post-purchase basis.
According to Coupang and the Fair Trade Commission on the 21st, buyers of children's products sold on Coupang cannot request exchanges or refunds through Coupang after 30 days of purchase, even if they receive a recall notice from the National Institute of Technology and Quality.
This is because Coupang's own "30 days after purchase" standard differs from the contract withdrawal period stipulated in current E-commerce Law.
Article 17, Paragraph 3 of the E-commerce Law establishes a separate period for cases where product content differs from advertising or from contract terms, apart from the general contract withdrawal period.
In such cases, consumers can withdraw from contracts within 3 months from the date of supply and within 30 days from when they knew or could have known of the discrepancy.
In this case, the National Institute of Technology and Quality's investigation detected lead exceeding safety standards, making the product subject to a "collection and exchange order."
The buyer had not yet reached 3 months from the date of supply and had not yet exceeded 30 days since receiving Coupang's recall notice and learning of the safety standard non-compliance.
The contract withdrawal period set by law remained available.
The procedure for returning payment after contract withdrawal is also specified in law.
Article 18, Paragraph 2 of the E-commerce Law stipulates refund obligations and includes in the scope of "distance sales operators" those "who receive payment from consumers or enter into distance sales contracts with consumers."
When products are supplied, refunds of already received payment must be made within 3 business days of receipt.
Processing methods for cases where payment is made through payment methods specified in law, such as credit cards, are also established. Article 18, Paragraph 3 requires distance sales operators to request that payment processors stop or cancel charges.
There are also regulations for cases where multiple operators are involved in the transaction.
Article 18, Paragraph 11 holds jointly liable for fulfilling refund obligations in cases where the distance sales operator, the party receiving product payment, and the party entering into the sales contract are not the same entity.
Nevertheless, on Coupang, regardless of when the recall fact was discovered, exchanges and returns could not be requested if 30 days had passed since purchase. Although law guarantees a separate contract withdrawal period from when product defects are discovered, there is no pathway in Coupang's system to exercise this right, and even the collection and refund procedures were transferred to sellers outside Coupang.
Apart from Coupang not being the direct seller but rather a distance sales intermediary, there are also obligations assigned to intermediaries.
Article 20, Paragraph 3 of the E-commerce Law requires distance sales intermediaries to rapidly implement necessary measures such as identifying causes and damages to resolve consumer complaints and disputes arising from use of cyber malls.
There are also provisions to impose penalties for failing to fulfill these obligations.
Article 32 of the E-commerce Law allows the Fair Trade Commission to order corrective measures for operators who violate or fail to fulfill refund obligations under Article 18 or distance sales intermediary obligations under Article 20, including halting violations, fulfilling legal obligations, and preventing and remedying consumer damage.
Acts obstructing contract withdrawal are also separately prohibited. Article 21 of the E-commerce Law prohibits acts such as providing false or exaggerated information or using deceptive methods to obstruct consumer contract withdrawals, which can also be subject to corrective measures under Article 32.
If violations are repeated despite corrective measures or corrective orders are not implemented as specified in law, this can lead to business suspension.
In this case, whether Coupang's operational methods violate these provisions requires determination by the Fair Trade Commission and others.
Coupang stated that it has "no separate official position" on why the contract withdrawal period under E-commerce Law differs from Coupang's exchange and return standards, why it does not provide a separate application pathway for recalled products, and regarding refund responsibility following contract withdrawal.