A review report by the National Assembly’s Culture, Sports and Tourism Committee has been submitted regarding a partial amendment to the Game Industry Promotion Act, proposed by Rep. Kim Seong-hoi of the Democratic Party of Korea.

The proposed amendment would impose an administrative surcharge of up to 3% of revenue or up to KRW 1 billion on any party that distributes a game product that either fails to disclose probability-type item information or discloses it falsely.

Under the current law, companies found in violation are subject to a corrective order from the Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism, and may also face criminal penalties of up to two years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 20 million. The amendment’s stated rationale is that the economic gains obtained through probability manipulation can exceed existing penalties, allowing related legal violations to persist.

In the review report, Park Jae-yu, Senior Specialist of the Culture, Sports and Tourism Committee, pointed out that the amendment could overlap with the Korea Fair Trade Commission’s sanctions framework. Article 21 of the current Act on the Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce, etc. prohibits acts that induce consumers through false or deceptive methods, and provides for the Fair Trade Commission to impose administrative surcharges for violations.

The Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism (MCST) expressed a cautious position on passing the amendment, citing concerns over potential double punishment under existing laws. The ministry’s view is that, since a punitive damages regime of up to three times damages for violations of the probability-type item disclosure obligation took effect on August 1, 2025, policymakers should first observe how the existing sanctions operate in practice before discussing additional measures.

The Korea Association of Game Industry (K-GAMES) also submitted a position stating that careful review is necessary. The association noted that the scope of “revenue,” which serves as the basis for calculating the surcharge, is not specifically defined in the bill, creating the possibility that revenue unrelated to the violation could be included in the calculation. It argued that this could undermine the proportionality of sanctions and reduce legal predictability for game business operators.

This article was translated from the original that appeared on INVEN.