Fair Trade Commission Did Not Review Internet Articles on 'Humidifier Disinfectant False Advertising'... Constitutional Court Rules "Unconstitutional"

Constitutional Court: "Investigation Contrary to Justice and Equity... Arbitrary Based on Evidence Judgment"

Chief Justice Yoo Nam-seok of the Constitutional Court and other constitutional justices are seated in the Grand Bench of the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul, on the afternoon of the 29th.
[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Constitutional Court has ruled that the Fair Trade Commission's exclusion of internet articles when reviewing the unfair advertising case of the humidifier disinfectant manufactured by SK Chemical and sold by Aekyung Industrial is unconstitutional. Accordingly, a re-investigation by the Fair Trade Commission into the internet articles is expected.

On the 29th, the Constitutional Court, with a unanimous opinion of all justices, decided that the Fair Trade Commission's termination of the review process for three internet articles related to the humidifier disinfectant ‘Home Clinic Humidifier Mate’ was unconstitutional.

Victim A of the humidifier disinfectant case reported to the Fair Trade Commission in April 2016 that "SK Chemical and Aekyung Industrial engaged in unfair labeling and advertising," submitting evidence including product label markings, advertisements on Aekyung Industrial’s website, newspaper print ads, and internet articles.

However, in July of the same year, the Fair Trade Commission excluded newspaper print ads and internet articles from the review, citing reasons such as the products being sold before the enactment of the Labeling and Advertising Act and thus not subject to its application. In response, A filed a constitutional complaint.

The Constitutional Court stated, "Since the internet articles included content asserting the product’s safety to the human body, proceeding with the review process holds particularly significant meaning," adding, "The burden of proof regarding the product’s safety lies with the respondents (SK Chemical and Aekyung Industrial), and had the review process proceeded, there was a possibility of administrative sanctions such as corrective orders and fines, as well as Fair Trade Commission’s prosecution and criminal penalties."

Furthermore, the court ruled, "The acts excluded from the review were arbitrary, resulting from investigations or misapplications of the law or evidence judgments that were clearly contrary to justice and equity, thereby infringing upon the petitioner’s rights to equality and the right to present statements during judicial procedures."