[Inside Chodong] The Battle for Control and Blame-Shifting: The Coupang Crisis Without Customers

Since the onset of COVID-19, our consumption has become heavily reliant on Coupang. From daily necessities and fashion to furniture and electronics, major purchases have been made through Coupang. This dependence is not just about convenience but is fundamentally based on trust. It is a powerful belief, built on consumer experience, that the items ordered will arrive at our doorstep by early morning, and that any issues will be resolved immediately. However, despite this personal trust in Coupang, the scenes unfolding after the recent personal information leak incident have been quite unsettling. It is not the incident itself, but rather the way it is being handled that is troubling.

The current Coupang situation is unfolding in a direction that deviates from its essence. Coupang and the government are at odds over the nature of the data breach and the scope of the disclosure, with the United States also involved. Coupang has explained the nature and scale of the incident based on its own investigation, but the government has argued that the company created confusion by announcing its conclusions before the official investigation. At the same time, Coupang, as a company listed in the United States, is responding to disclosure requirements from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and managing investor risk. Each party-the Korean government, Coupang, and the U.S. market-is focused on securing its own initiative, avoiding blame, or pursuing its own interests in response to a single incident.

Yonhap News

While the debate surrounding the issue intensifies, the actual victims-the customers-are being sidelined from the core of the discussion. As Coupang, the government, and the United States prioritize their own judgments and interests, consumer protection has been pushed to the background. Customers are concerned about the scope of the data leak, the necessary responses, and the protective measures available to them. However, what they hear is merely debate over the timing of announcements and who is responsible for making decisions.

In fact, Coupang is a unique company. It is listed in the United States but operates in Korea. In effect, the owners are in the U.S., while the customers are in Korea. This very structure is inherently tense. In such a contradiction, what Coupang chooses to place at the center of its business is crucial, as that decision reveals the company's true nature and its capacity for sustainability.

This incident clearly highlights the direction Coupang has chosen. While disclosures to the U.S. market and responses to lawsuits proceeded rapidly, explanations and protective measures for domestic customers were comparatively less clear. This difference is the reason why current perceptions of Coupang are not entirely favorable.

There are many stakeholders surrounding a company, but ultimately, the value of a company comes from its customers. Shareholders and investors can be seen as those who help grow and share that customer value. Especially for a company like Coupang, which is deeply embedded in the daily lives of tens of millions of people, customer protection is not a matter of choice but a fundamental prerequisite for the company's survival. It is questionable whether Coupang is fully aware of the weight of the crown it now wears. While its scale is already akin to social infrastructure, its approach to responsibility still seems to be at the level of a growing startup.

The government's response is also not free from criticism. It is necessary to hold companies accountable when they are at fault. However, if the focus shifts to controlling the investigation and managing the message, the essence of consumer protection is lost. The government's role is not to engage in a power struggle with companies, but to alleviate customer anxiety. The primary duty of regulatory authorities is to first explain the scope of the damage, protective measures, and plans to prevent recurrence.

The Coupang incident raises the question of how standards of responsibility should be set as the scale and influence of mega-platform companies grow in the platform era. Depending on how this giant platform and the government protect customers, there will be a sober assessment of the company's sustainability and the government's administrative capabilities.