Top Headlines

Feeds

Minority Reports

Unique coverage by outlet

South Korea’s Assembly Moves Against Coupang Over Massive Data Leak

Updated (3 articles)

Massive Leak Touching Two‑Thirds of Population The breach exposed personal data of roughly 33 million South Korean users, about two‑thirds of the nation’s population. Government officials confirmed the figure during the parliamentary hearing and reiterated it in subsequent statements. The scale of the incident has amplified political pressure on the e‑commerce giant to demonstrate accountability [1][2][3].

Government Forms Task Force While Intelligence Agency Denies Directives On December 18, a pan‑government task force comprising the Ministry of Science and ICT, the Personal Information Protection Commission, and police was created to investigate the leak and recommend user‑protection measures. The National Intelligence Service (NIS) publicly rejected claims that it ordered Coupang to conduct an internal probe or to contact the leaker, limiting its role to information requests only. Both the task force launch and the NIS denial were highlighted in multiple reports, underscoring divergent government approaches to the crisis [2][3].

Coupang Chief Faces Perjury Complaint After Contested Testimony Interim CEO Harold Rogers testified that the internal investigation was conducted at the NIS’s direction, prompting the intelligence agency to label his statements false and to urge the National Assembly to file a perjury complaint. The Assembly scheduled a vote on the complaint, and Rogers took an oath during the plenary session as part of the hearing. The perjury allegation is the focal point of the legislative‑executive clash over the breach response [1][2].

Compensation Offer Draws Consumer Skepticism Amid Founder’s Apology Founder Kim Bom‑suk issued a public apology and announced a compensation scheme intended to reimburse affected customers. Consumer‑rights groups criticized the plan as a marketing maneuver designed to spur new purchases and renew memberships rather than genuine remediation. The criticism, echoed across all three articles, highlights ongoing tension between corporate damage control and public expectations [1][2].

Sources (3 articles)