Google and Apples excessive fees, how should I catch it by law

In March, App Market operators, such as Google and Apple, were enforced, which prohibits forced to enforce specific payment methods. However, domestic companies that provide content through Google Play and Apple App Store, including games, are difficult to feel change. Google has banned the outlink of paying and paying for a separate web page, and even if you use a third-party payment, 26%of your sales (30%for in-app payment) must be paid. Outlinks are not available, and it is meaningless to pay a lot of fees even if you use external payment.

Initially, the background of the forced prohibition of in-app payment last year was to prevent global big tech companies that are represented by Google and Apple to prevent excessive fees for domestic contents producers. However, in the way I mentioned earlier, Google and Apple actually bypasses the law and are not able to survive. So what kind of parts can we need to make up for the purpose of the law?

A policy debate on this topic was held in the National Assembly on the 27th. The debate was co-hosted by the Democratic Party’s lawmakers along with Cho Seung-rae, who initiated the bill, along with the lawmaker Cho Seung-rae and Yoon Young-chan. Attorney Park Ji-yeon, a law firm, announced the status of the law, and Cho Young-ki, Secretary General of the Korea Internet Enterprise Association, Seo Bum-gang, Chairman of the Webtoon Business Association, Park Ji-sung, Deputy Director of Electronic Newspaper Media Media Participated.

Both speakers and panelists can interpret Google’s acts that prohibit outlink payments as a violation of the In-app Payment Prohibition Act, and that it is also excessive to charge 26%on a fee even if a third party payment is allowed. Seo Beom-gang, chairman of the Webtoon Industry Association, said, When using a third-party payment, Google can receive a fee, but in the third party payment, it does not provide consumer protection and benefits. 26%do nothing. Korea toll tax.

No

Therefore, as mentioned earlier, it is a common opinion that global big tech companies, such as Google and Apple, need to fill the loopholes in the law and the Enforcement Decree so that they do not impose excessive fees on content producers. The current law can be judged to be an illegality, but administrative agencies such as Google, Apple and the Korea Communications Commission have room for interpreting the law differently.

Attorney Park Ji-yeon, a law firm in charge of the presentation, did not contain the app market operator to prohibit the enforcement of in-app payment and other payment methods, and that there is no definition of what the ‘payment method’ is in the law. It was announced that it came to mind. Both parts can be flexibly operated through judgment and legal interpretation, but based on the fact that the result is a third-party payment of 26%of the commission, it is necessary to reinforce the contents more legally.

In the analysis of legislation and analysis of the legislative research of the National Assembly, Hong Jung explained that the act of making it difficult or uncomfortable with the process of approaching and using other payment methods rather than a particular payment method, which is more than a constitutional principle of clarity. Hong Jung said, The approach and use procedure is too wide and comprehensive compared to other necks, such as ‘technical limitations’ or ‘irrational or discriminatory conditions or restrictions’, which define the specific types of prohibition behavior. The act of making or uncomfortable can be a subjective opinion that can be evaluated differently from person to person, so it is difficult to give the public about the prediction of what actions are prohibited.

Choi Kyung-jin, a professor at Gachon University, said that it is necessary to clearly define what to do through the subjects and laws to be regulated. Professor Choi Kyung-jin said, We need to continue to discuss regulatory discussions about super-large platforms such as Google and Apple with pinpoints rather than all platform operators. In addition, he said, It is not clear what a business owner who is taking a fee is to pay for the opposite payment, and if there is a difference between the operator who uses the app payment and the external payment, it can be regarded as a discrimination. He added that 26%of Google’s commissions are appropriate.

At the same time, it was judged that the in-app payment was violated, and it was highly concerned that the penalties could not be recovered even if the penalties were imposed and criminally punished, so that the punishment could be secured by realizing the punishment according to social consensus. d1. If you violate the in-app for compulsory prohibition law, sales of 2%of sales are imposed as a penalty, but it is not clear whether this sales are domestic or global standards.

In addition, it is necessary to refer to the US approach that proposed a bill that prohibits big tech companies to purchase its own products and services beyond simple payment methods, and new apps that can be played against Google and Apple in Korea. It is also said that one of the ways to grow the market and solve the problem through market competition is one of the ways.

Representative Cho Seung-rae, who hosted the debate, said he plans to supplement legally inadequate parts. At the same time, he pointed out that the Korea Communications Commission, which enforces the law, is responding passively. Representative Cho Seung-rae said, I think that I have missed the part to be clear in the process of creating and executing the Enforcement Decree rather than the laws and the opinions of the panelist. It is the role of enforcement agency, but I wonder why not. If there is a lack of willingness to execution, it will be determined by the National Assembly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.