On 28 October 2026 the Korea Media and Communications Commission (KMCC) fined Google 42.9 billion won and Apple 20.81 billion won, a combined 63.7 billion won (about $47.6 million), according to The Korea Times. It is the first enforcement of the 2021 amendment to the Telecommunications Business Act, known as the 'anti-Google law', which bars app market operators from forcing developers onto a specific payment method. The headline number is the least important part of the decision.
The strongest case for the regulator
The case for intervention deserves a fair hearing. App stores on iOS and Android are the only practical route to most smartphone users. When the store operator also sets the payment rules and takes a cut, a developer has little room to negotiate. The Korea Times reports that the KMCC found both companies imposed unreasonable conditions on third-party payments, with a 26 percent commission on those transactions. It also found they delayed app reviews without giving specific reasons or clear answers to developers' inquiries. A review process with no stated timetable is a real business risk, because a developer cannot plan a launch around it. The KMCC says it applies the law equally to domestic and foreign firms, and the Korea Times reports that it found Apple charged domestic and foreign developers different commission rates.
A statute passed in 2021 should not take until late 2026 to be applied once. The Korea Herald reports that the regulator first notified the companies of proposed measures in October 2023, about three years before this decision. That is not a regulatory regime developers can rely on.
Why the remedy matters more than the fine
Against Apple's own figures, the penalty is small. Apple said the App Store facilitated 38.1 trillion won in developer billings and sales last year, so its 20.81 billion won fine is roughly 0.05% of that. No one will change their business model to avoid a fine of that size.
The corrective orders are the real intervention. Both firms must allow links to external payment websites inside apps and revise their commission structures. Per the Korea Herald, they must file compliance plans within one month and implement changes within three months. Apple must also drop its requirement that developers submit separate apps in order to offer alternative payment options. Google must revise its user-experience guidelines for third-party payments.
These are conduct remedies of the kind competition economists generally prefer to structural ones. They keep the stores intact and widen developer choice. A developer can take a customer to its own checkout, and the platform still earns for the services it actually provides. The Korea Herald reports the KMCC will not file criminal complaints, which is a proportionate choice for a first enforcement action under a new rule.
Where the design risks lie
The orders leave open what counts as a 'reasonable' commission. The Korea Herald reports only that third-party payment fees must be adjusted to 'reasonable levels', with no percentage attached. That vagueness cuts both ways. A regulator that sets a number invites an endless rate-setting dispute. A regulator that sets none leaves the platforms to propose a figure and wait for the next enforcement round.
The platforms have a legitimate counterargument. Apple says the changes it has implemented to date already comply with the Telecommunications Business Act, and it is 'evaluating our options in accordance with Korean law'. Payment processing, fraud screening, refunds and distribution carry real costs. A regime that lets developers use the platform's audience while charging nothing for it would hurt innovation too, because it undermines the ecosystems that make small apps viable. The right test is whether the platform's fee tracks the value of its services and whether developers have a credible alternative. A set percentage does not answer that.
Google's response illustrates the timing problem. Google Korea said it regretted that its efforts to comply were not fully reflected. The Korea Times reports that Google announced in March it would allow external payment options and lower service fees, and the KMCC said that plan was not considered in its decision. If the regulator gives no credit for voluntary compliance, platforms have less reason to move before a decision arrives. The three-year delay then makes the gap between change and credit worse.
The other Korean case
The KMCC action is one of two Korean cases against Google's app business. The Korea Fair Trade Commission's case over Google's 'Project Hug' games programme, which examiners allege tied developer support to launching on Google Play on terms at least as favourable as on rival stores, was opened in July 2026 and remains pending. That case addresses competition among app stores rather than payment rules. Together they could change how Korean game developers distribute apps. The KFTC publishes its decisions at ftc.go.kr.
What to watch
Three things will show whether this enforcement works. First, whether the compliance plans due within a month, and the changes due within three, produce commission reductions developers can actually use. Second, whether Apple appeals and how Korean courts treat the 'forcing' standard. Third, whether the KMCC publishes a rationale for what a reasonable fee is. A published methodology would give both platforms and developers a basis for planning. Without one, Korea has a rule that took five years to enforce and still lacks a clear standard to enforce.
The sensible reading is that this was a proportionate response with an overdue timeline. The fine is modest and the remedy is targeted. What remains to be seen is whether the compliance step works.