Kim Bum-suk’s arrogance and Korea’s reckoning

“Coupang is a proud South Korean company. It was founded and grew here, and more than 99 percent of its business operations are conducted in South Korea.”

That was the message Coupang emphasized in July 2019, when Japan imposed export restrictions on South Korea. At the time, South Korean consumers launched a widespread boycott of Japanese products, and Coupang became a target because of substantial investment from Japan’s SoftBank. In response, the company promoted what became known as the argument that Coupang is fundamentally a Korean company.

Coupang continued to highlight its Korean identity during its March 2021 listing on the New York Stock Exchange. On the day of the IPO, founder and Coupang Inc. Chairman Kim Bom Suk told the media that the company’s success was part of the Miracle on the Han River.

After a major personal data breach, Kim’s tone and conduct shifted sharply. Despite roughly 90 percent of the revenue flowing into his personal wealth coming from South Korean consumers, he has presented himself as a foreign corporate executive. He has ignored requests to appear before the South Korean National Assembly, citing his role as CEO of a global company. His response to South Korean consumers has drawn criticism for a lack of accountability. More than 80 days after the incident, Kim has yet to appear before the 34 million affected users, offering only a single written statement that many viewed as more of an explanation than an apology.

Meanwhile, pressure from U.S. political and government circles on South Korea has continued to intensify. Last month, foreign media reported that U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance conveyed concerns to Korean Prime Minister Kim Min-seok, urging caution against measures that could disadvantage U.S. technology companies, including Coupang. On Feb. 5, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and Rep. Scott Fitzgerald announced plans to hold a hearing, saying they would investigate what they described as a targeted campaign by the South Korean government against Coupang. Tyler Grimm, a former senior aide for policy and strategy to Jordan, is currently registered as a lobbyist for Coupang.

What, then, has made Kim Bom Suk so confident?

First is Coupang’s overwhelming market dominance, built on what critics describe as a tilted playing field shaped by South Korean politics. As recently as 2020, just before its IPO, Coupang’s annual revenue amounted to roughly half that of the country’s three major hypermarket chains combined. Within four years, Coupang’s sales surpassed the combined revenue of those three retailers. While large brick-and-mortar stores were constrained by regulations limiting late-night and holiday operations under the Distribution Industry Development Act, Coupang expanded with few comparable restrictions. Having grown into a retail giant, Coupang no longer appears to view the South Korean government as a meaningful constraint.

Second is South Korea’s self-punitive regulatory approach, which is often harsher on domestic firms than on foreign ones. Under fair trade law, owners of companies with assets exceeding 5 trillion won are designated as controlling shareholders and subjected to extensive regulations. When Coupang’s assets crossed that threshold in 2021, however, the Fair Trade Commission declined to designate Kim as a controlling shareholder, citing his U.S. citizenship. The decision effectively signaled that foreign nationality could shield a company’s owner from regulatory scrutiny.

Finally, there is Kim’s confidence in the resources Coupang has invested in Washington. Since its New York listing in 2021, Coupang has spent more than 15 billion won on lobbying U.S. political and government circles alone. The impact of that spending is now becoming visible in multiple arenas.

Taken together, these factors suggest that Kim is unlikely to change his hard-line approach, which relies heavily on support from the U.S. government and Congress. The pressing question now is how South Korea’s government should respond. With tariff issues already posing a serious risk, any excessive reaction could harm national interests. At the same time, following Kim’s strategy without resistance would be unacceptable in terms of national dignity and sovereignty.

In this situation, one of the few viable options for South Korea’s government and political leadership is to dismantle the reverse discrimination long imposed on domestic companies through outdated or self-punitive regulations. Restrictions on large retailers, which helped turn Coupang into an uncontrollable giant, should be repealed without delay. Regulations governing large corporate groups that no longer fit the era of global competition also require a fundamental review. At a minimum, South Korean companies must be given a fair environment in which they can compete on equal terms with Coupang, now widely described as a U.S. company.

Chairman Jordan justified the proposed Coupang hearing by arguing that the South Korean government has continued to target U.S. companies in order to benefit South Korean and Chinese firms. If South Korea continues to bind its own companies with restrictive rules, only to face such accusations again, the situation would verge on the absurd.