A Comparative Study on the Regulatory Philosophy and Methods for Online Platforms : Focusing on the EU Digital Services Act and the EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive

The growing interest in whether the EU Digital Services Act (DSA) will establish itself as a foundational law, constitution, or international standard for online platforms, driven by the so-called ‘Brussels Effect,’ underscores the significance of this study. Against this backdrop, the research compares the philosophies and regulatory methods of the EU Digital Services Act, the EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive, Korea's Network Act, and Broadcasting Act from a comparative legal perspective. The study aims to analyze not only the detailed provisions of the DSA but also its broader philosophical characteristics to better understand its potential impact on Korea’s online and media platform regulations. The research highlights that the DSA imposes significant obligations on very large online platforms (VLOPs), such as submitting transparency reports every six months and facing economic penalties for violations. However, categorizing platforms solely based on user numbers and applying uniform obligations may lack nuance, underscoring the need for carefully designed legislative frameworks aligned with regulatory philosophy. The study also emphasizes the importance of avoiding overlapping regulations when adopting similar laws domestically. While the EU applies multiple laws, such as the DSA, Audiovisual Media Services Directive, and Digital Markets Act, to regulate platforms like YouTube, Korea must ensure that domestic regulations do not stifle the growth of its online platform industry through redundant or excessive regulatory burdens. The DSA also imposes an obligation on VLOPs and search engine operators to assess the risks posed by algorithmic systems to public discourse and electoral processes. South Korea currently lacks legislation regarding the manipulation or unfair use of platform algorithms. Within the scope of preventing threats to democracy, it would be desirable to impose obligations for transparency in technical matters and data, as proposed in the DSA, and positively consider adopting similar provisions domestically. Regarding media regulations, the study suggests revising certain provisions in Korea’s Broadcasting Act that may excessively undermine content competitiveness. Additionally, when defining illegal information in online and media platforms, Korea should avoid the DSA’s broad approach of equating offline and online illegality. Instead, it should maintain clear and specific regulatory standards, as demonstrated by Korea’s existing laws, to safeguard freedom of expression while effectively addressing harmful content. The study further highlights the importance of media literacy in the context of expanded media platforms. It views the EU’s emphasis on public interest content and the distribution of political news as essential to fostering informed public discourse and democratic values in new media environments. Such regulatory approaches could serve as valuable references for shaping Korea’s own media literacy frameworks. Lastly, the research underscores the potential benefits of adopting legislative techniques that blend self-regulation with enforceability. The DSA’s regulated self-regulation, the Audiovisual Media Services Directive’s co-regulation, and Korea’s legal institutionalization of self-regulation in the Network Act are cited as effective models for improving regulatory effectiveness. The study concludes that while the EU leads in establishing legislation for a democratic digital environment, its approach may not fully align with Korea’s existing legal framework and regulatory environment. Therefore, it is crucial for Korea to adapt such legislative innovations thoughtfully, ensuring compatibility with domestic conditions while aligning with global standards. This research provides a foundational resource for developing balanced and effective online and media platform regulations in Korea.