자율규제의 유형별 사례와 플랫폼 자율규제를 위한 시사점

Abstract

Since self-regulation has a very diverse spectrum, it is difficult to limit self-regulation to a single regulatory form. That’s why it is very important to select an appropriate form for each industry area or issue, considering the characteristics of the industry and the effectiveness of the method. For the successful settlement of self-regulation, an objective evaluation of the market situation on the necessity of regulation must be made first, and a review of whether self-regulation is appropriate for each area of regulation and related issues, and if so, which model of self-regulation is appropriate. Since different types of self-regulation models have already been implemented in various industrial areas at home and abroad, it will be possible to find a method of self-regulation suitable for online platform services by examining overseas cases as well as domestic experiences. In terms of self-regulation as a type of regulation, it is necessary to review the principle of proportionality and effectiveness. By examining overseas self-regulation cases, efforts should be made to find a suitable self-regulation model in light of the current state of our platform industry. Among the methods of self-regulation, in order for the corporate internal board type to be effective, it is necessary to clearly reveal the results of the implementation of self-regulation. In order to introduce an alliance type of self-regulation, it is necessary not only to secure the legitimacy of the self-regulatory body itself, but also to continuously monitor and feedback on the self-regulation system itself in the process of self-regulation implementation. Self-regulation in the case of an alliance of companies forming an independent organization could be an effective means if actual competition is taking place in the online platform market and the evaluation of the platform's own efforts for user welfare acts as an incentive in the market. The public-private partnership also has advantages and disadvantages. Since the platform service area contains various regulatory issues (fair trade, Internet user protection, content issues, etc.), there is a risk that governance conflicts may appear even if the model is introduced in Korea. Co-regulation of the sharing economy platform in Europe seems to be based on a solid partnership between public entities (mainly local governments) and the platform, and it seems that the platform will need a basis for enforcing rules on behalf of the platform. Rather than adopting a specific model uniformly in Korea, it is necessary to prioritize efforts to find platform services suitable for co-regulation while maintaining the spirit of self-regulation. Self-regulation is not a complete and fixed concept, but a continuous and changing movement. Since the online platform industry is also a complex field, it is not desirable to view this as a phenomenon and to enforce uniform self-regulation governance. It is necessary to carefully examine the experience of self-regulation at home and abroad, identify the strengths and weaknesses of each type, and carefully construct a self-regulation model suitable for the current situation of our platform market.