abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeblueskyburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfilterflaggenderglobeglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptriangletwitteruniversalitywebwhatsappxIcons / Social / YouTube

The content is also available in the following languages: 한국어

Article

2 May 2025

Author:
Jung So-hee, Labour Today

S.Korea: Anti-corruption agency denies protection for Coupang blacklist whistleblower

Allegations

“ACRC rejects whistleblower protection for Coupang blacklist case,” 2 May 2025

South Korea’s Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (ACRC) has rejected a request for whistleblower protection by a Coupang worker who had reported the company’s alleged collection and use of personal information on workers and journalists for employment blacklisting.

… A, the whistleblower, reported to the media at the end of 2023 that Coupang was managing a blacklist containing the names of 16,450 individuals, including trade union leaders and journalists critical of the company. A later claimed that Coupang had filed a police complaint against them in retaliation for the disclosure and expressed concern about the possibility of civil litigation, prompting the request for protection to the ACRC.

… A also argued that Coupang had placed them on a reemployment blacklist, leading to disadvantageous treatment, but this claim was likewise not upheld.

… Although media reports since early 2023 have repeatedly detailed alleged cases where journalists and union leaders critical of Coupang were blacklisted, the ACRC did not reflect these in its decision.

… The ACRC stated that while the list submitted by the whistleblower contained employees’ personal details and reasons for resignation, it was unclear whether it was compiled for the purpose of obstructing reemployment. It further noted that no specific examples had been provided demonstrating the list being used to block employment opportunities. The commission said that Coupang’s denial that the list was intended to interfere with reemployment made it difficult to conclude that there was a violation of the law, and added that there was insufficient evidence to determine a breach of the Personal Information Protection Act regarding the collection of journalists’ personal information.