디지털 플랫폼 투명화·공정화 법제의 동향과 전망: EU, 일본, 우리나라 법제의 주요 내용과 평가에 대한 비교법적 검토

Against the backdrop of digitalization and growing asymmetry between digital platforms and users, there has been growing concerns over limits of competition law enforcement that is firmly geared to tackling abusive practices by a firm with entrenched dominance. As various digital reports point out, in digital markets even companies without dominant position can engage in abusive practices by using their so-called ‘gate-keeping position’. Such situation may be originated from, e.g. competitive bottlenecks. The EU’s recent Google cases and South Korea’s Naver case, which are based on the ‘self-preferencing doctrine’, could be regarded as good examples that show limits of coventional competition law enforcement. Also, in the current competition law framework The House Antitrust Subcommittee of the U.S released a report that it is critical to evaluate whether existing antitrust regulations are appropriate to tackle abusive treatment by platforms or whether new rules are needed to cope with this challenge. Against this backdrop, various jurisdictions have adopted or are introducing ex ante regulation applicable to digital platform industry as a complementary tool for competition policy. In 2019, the EU set up the first-ever rules aimed at improving transparence, fairness, and making predictable business environment regulating P2B when using online platforms. JFTC introduced new legislation for businesses and traders in the digital platform market. The KFTC announced draft legislation targeting online platforms as well. Thus, it is significant and timely to compare and analyze the legislation of the EU, Japan, and South Korea. In this respect, this paper explores the approaches and prospects to promote the relationship between P2B while making such business fairer and more transparent. This will ultimately lead to advantages for the consumers in the online platforms. Therefore, we will look at the main contents of the legislation of EU, Japan, and South Korea and then make a comparative legal overview in this connection, this paper firstly explores commonalities and differences between each legislations and based on the findings, secondly, it will be analysed what’s the background and goals of such legislative actions. third, how the notion of “search neutrality” is reflected into the laws will be reviewed in that the “search neutrality” discourse has been at the very heart of the need for platform regulation. Through this study, the author will hopefully highlight important considerations and implications so that Korea's new platform fairness law, which is preparing for implementation, can enforce antitrust activity and maintain market efficiency while maintaining regulatory rationality.