Is Missing Alt Text Disability Discrimination in South Korea?

1. What Are the Core Issues Decided by This Supreme Court Ruling?

The Supreme Court of South Korea (March 12, 2026, Case No. 2023da255130) addressed four key legal questions.

• Issue 1 (Indirect discrimination): Whether failing to provide alternative text constitutes “indirect discrimination” under Article 4(1)(ii) of the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Disabled Persons (ADDP)
• Issue 2 (Scope of marketplace obligations): Whether an online marketplace operator bears a duty to provide reasonable accommodations under Article 21(1) of the ADDP even for product information uploaded directly by individual sellers
• Issue 3 (Standard applicable to private companies): Whether the standards established for government agencies under the Act on Promotion of the Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection and related notices and guidelines may serve as a reference benchmark for private-sector websites
• Issue 4 (Scope and limits of affirmative action orders): The content and limits of affirmative action orders that courts may issue

The Supreme Court ruled against the defendant (platform operator) on all four issues, affirming the lower court’s affirmative action order. However, the plaintiffs’ claim for consolation damages was rejected by both the appellate and Supreme courts.

Procedural History

The plaintiffs (the named party and 963 co-plaintiffs designated in the selection) are visually impaired individuals with visual acuity of 0.06 or less in the better eye, classified as persons with severe visual impairment under Annex 1 of the Enforcement Rules of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities. The defendant operates the G-Market website, a platform through which individual sellers list goods and consumers purchase them — making the defendant a telecommunications sales brokerage operator. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant’s failure to provide alternative text for non-text content on the website made it practically impossible to access product information using screen readers, and sought both consolation damages under Article 46 of the ADDP and an affirmative action order under Article 48(2).

2. How Do “Indirect Discrimination” and “Refusal of Reasonable Accommodation” Differ in South Korea?

Article 4(1) of the ADDP defines prohibited discrimination in seven sub-categories. This case involved sub-category (ii), indirect discrimination, and sub-category (iii), refusal of reasonable accommodation.

Indirect Discrimination

Article 4(1)(ii) of the ADDP covers situations where, although a person with a disability is not explicitly treated unfavorably, the application of criteria that fail to account for the disability without justifiable reason produces an unfavorable outcome for that person. G-Market provided the same website to all users regardless of disability status. However, an image-heavy website without alternative text is practically inaccessible to visually impaired users who rely on screen readers. Applying a uniform standard that ignores visual disability — resulting in adverse outcomes for visually impaired users — constitutes indirect discrimination. Article 20(1) of the ADDP specifically prohibits this form of indirect discrimination in the context of access to electronic information, and it applies to individuals, corporations, and public institutions alike.

Refusal of Reasonable Accommodation

Article 4(1)(iii) of the ADDP covers the refusal, without justifiable reason, to provide reasonable accommodation to a person with a disability. Article 4(2) defines “reasonable accommodation” as all necessary human and material means and measures — including facilities, equipment, tools, and services — that account for the gender, type and degree, and characteristics of the disability, enabling persons with disabilities to participate in the same activities on an equal basis with non-disabled persons. Article 21(1) of the ADDP and Article 14(2)(i) of the Enforcement Decree give concrete form to this obligation in the information and telecommunications domain, requiring operators to provide “a website ensuring accessibility so that anyone can use the desired service regardless of physical or technical conditions.”

The Two Types Can Apply Simultaneously

The defendant argued that because this case involves a failure to provide an accommodation, only sub-category (iii) should apply and sub-category (ii) should be excluded. The Supreme Court rejected this argument. The ADDP does not exclude the possibility that a single act of discrimination may fall under more than one sub-category of Article 4(1). The fact that a case involves a failure to provide a specific accommodation does not preclude the application of indirect discrimination. This interpretation aligns with the legislative purpose of the ADDP as stated in Article 1 — to prohibit disability-based discrimination across all areas of life and to realize equality and human dignity for persons with disabilities.

3. Do Online Marketplace Operators Bear Accessibility Obligations for Third-Party Seller Content?

This is one of the most practically significant holdings of this ruling. G-Market is not a direct retailer but a telecommunications sales brokerage platform on which individual sellers list goods and consumers purchase them. The defendant argued that it could not be obligated under Article 21(1) of the ADDP to provide accommodations for electronic information that individual sellers had directly produced and uploaded, and over which the defendant had no authority to dispose.

The Supreme Court’s Holding

The Supreme Court rejected this argument. Article 21(1) of the ADDP addresses “electronic information produced or distributed by the relevant actor,” without requiring that the producer and distributor be the same entity. G-Market distributes — by transmitting to an unspecified number of consumers through its platform — electronic information that individual sellers produce by uploading products directly to the website. Accordingly, G-Market bears the obligation under Article 21(1) of the ADDP to provide reasonable accommodation even with respect to product-related electronic information uploaded directly by individual sellers.

Practical Implications

This holding applies directly to all intermediary platforms in South Korea where third parties post content that the platform operator then distributes to consumers: open-market e-commerce platforms, accommodation and travel booking platforms, food ordering platforms, real estate listing services, and any other brokerage platform model. Platform operators are responsible for the accessibility of information registered by sellers or partners, which means a comprehensive review of seller guidelines, system architecture, and image upload policies is now a legal necessity.

4. What Is the Legal Standard for Web Accessibility in South Korea?

Article 21(1) of the ADDP and Article 14(2)(i) of the Enforcement Decree require the provision of “a website ensuring accessibility so that anyone can use the desired service through the website regardless of physical or technical conditions.” The statutes do not, however, specify what concrete accommodations are required to meet this standard. The Supreme Court resolved this ambiguity as follows.

The Applicable Legal Framework

The Supreme Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court held that although the Act on Promotion of Intelligence Information Society and the related notices and guidelines do not directly bind private companies, they may serve as a reference benchmark when assessing whether the accessibility of a website operated by a private entity is assured for visually impaired persons. The Court reasoned that there is no fundamental difference between websites operated by government agencies and those operated by private companies for purposes of assessing visual accessibility; the Ministry Notice applies not only to government agencies but also to intelligence information service providers; and the KWCAG is a national standard approved under the Framework Act on National Standards and is generally used as a benchmark in accessibility assessments.

Why Alternative Text Is Essential

Visually impaired persons who cannot perceive information visually must rely primarily or exclusively on auditory means to access and use websites. Providing alternative text for non-text content is therefore essential to web accessibility for the visually impaired — without it, a screen reader cannot read image content aloud, making it practically impossible or significantly restricted for visually impaired users to access the website. Even where some alternative text is provided, it must be adequate and sufficient to meaningfully convey the content.

5. When Can a Company Claim a “Justifiable Reason” to Avoid Accessibility Obligations in South Korea?

Article 4(3) of the ADDP provides that the following circumstances constitute a justifiable reason such that the conduct will not be treated as discrimination: (i) where there is an excessive burden or significantly difficult circumstances in refraining from prohibited discriminatory conduct; or (ii) where the prohibited discriminatory conduct is unavoidable given the nature of a specific function or business. The burden of proving such justifiable reason rests on the party alleged to have discriminated — i.e., the company (Article 47(2)).

The Standard of Proof Is Strict

The Supreme Court (February 17, 2022, Case No. 2019da217421) set out the governing standard: whether a justifiable reason exists must be assessed case by case based on all relevant circumstances; financial burden alone is insufficient to easily recognize a justifiable reason in light of the legislative purpose of the ADDP; and all parties must fulfill their anti-discrimination obligations to the maximum extent short of “excessive burden or significantly difficult circumstances.” The same standard was applied in this case to reject the defendant’s “excessive burden” defense.

Factors relevant to the assessment include the company’s financial condition, the magnitude of the financial burden, the scale of subsidies or in-kind support available from the government, the existence of lower-cost alternatives, and the degree of effort the company has made to avoid the discriminatory conduct. For a large online platform operator, it will be extremely difficult to succeed on this defense.

6. What Remedies Can Courts Order for Web Accessibility Violations in South Korea?

Article 48(2) of the ADDP provides that courts may, upon the victim’s request, order affirmative action measures such as the cessation of discriminatory conduct, improvement of working conditions, and corrective measures. Article 48(3) provides that courts may specify a compliance period and order payment of compensation that accrues with delay, applying Article 261 of the Civil Execution Act (indirect compulsory performance) by analogy.

Judicial Discretion and the Principle of Proportionality

The Supreme Court (Case No. 2019da217421) held that courts hearing affirmative action claims should proactively consider ordering affirmative action remedies where discrimination is established, and enjoy broad discretion in determining the specific content and scope of such measures. However, the principle of proportionality — a constitutional principle derived from the rule of law — applies to all state action, including judicial orders. Accordingly, courts ordering affirmative action must comprehensively weigh the public and private interests of all stakeholders.

The Affirmative Action Order in This Case

The appellate court ordered the defendant to provide, within six months of the judgment becoming final, alternative text readable by screen reader for each item listed in Annex 2 of the appellate judgment — covering product and transaction information, product advertisements, and event notices containing written text on the G-Market website. The Supreme Court confirmed this order was within the permissible scope of judicial discretion. Non-compliance will expose the defendant to indirect compulsory fines accruing on a daily basis. Willful violations may also give rise to criminal liability of up to three years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 30 million under Article 49(1) of the ADDP.

7. Why Was the Damages Claim Rejected — and What Does It Mean Going Forward?

Article 46(1) of the ADDP provides: “Anyone who causes damage to another person in violation of this Act shall be liable for damages to the person who suffered harm. Provided, however, that this shall not apply where the person who committed the discriminatory act proves the absence of intent or negligence.” Unlike general tort law, this provision shifts the burden of proof on intent or negligence to the defendant company.

Why Negligence Was Negated in This Case

The appellate court negated intent and negligence on four grounds. First, there were no settled precedents, academic consensus, or judicial decisions on what specific methods or standards were required to satisfy web accessibility obligations under the ADDP and its Enforcement Decree. Second, because the Act on Promotion of Intelligence Information Society and related notices and guidelines directly govern only government agencies, private companies could not have been expected to recognize an obligation to comply with those standards. Third, the defendant had made substantial efforts to improve accessibility since 2013, when Article 21 of the ADDP began applying to it. Fourth, no evidence showed that the plaintiffs had demanded improvements from the defendant before filing suit, nor had any administrative order been issued against the defendant.

The Landscape Has Changed Fundamentally

Now that the Supreme Court has definitively confirmed that failing to provide alternative text violates the ADDP, companies that fail to take corrective action after this ruling will face a fundamentally different legal environment. The “we didn’t know” defense will no longer be available. This ruling effectively opens the door to full damages liability — including consolation money — for future accessibility violations at companies that now have clear notice of the law.

8. What Steps Should Your Company Take Right Now?

This ruling imposes concrete legal obligations on every company operating a website in South Korea — e-commerce platforms, online service providers, content distributors, financial institutions, healthcare providers, and any other business delivering services through a website. The key reference standards are Annex 3 of the Ministry of Science and ICT Notice No. 2025-55 and the Korean Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (KWCAG 2.2, current version).

Immediate Actions

Conduct a self-assessment of your current web accessibility status. The core checklist: Are all images and graphic elements provided with meaningful alternative text (alt text)? Do decorative images carry an empty alt attribute (alt=””)? Are interactive elements such as buttons and links recognizable by screen reader? Are captions provided for video content? Assemble a task force of legal and IT personnel and draw up an improvement roadmap.

Actions Within Six Months

Engage a specialist accessibility auditor or disability advocacy organization for a comprehensive review and remediation. Distribute alternative text guidelines to third-party sellers and partners and implement system-level support requiring alternative text at the point of content upload. Document all remediation activity carefully — this documentation will serve as evidence for any future “justifiable reason” defense or denial of intent and negligence.

Ongoing Actions

Embed accessibility compliance into the standard workflow for website development and content management. Implement automated tools that prompt or verify alternative text at the point of content upload, and establish a regular accessibility monitoring program. Consider disclosing your accessibility compliance status in ESG or CSR reports.

Based on our review of precedents and practical experience advising corporate clients in South Korea, this ruling represents a genuine inflection point for digital accessibility obligations. The legal risk of non-compliance is now material and immediate. Atlas Legal assists companies in building ADDP compliance frameworks, defending web accessibility litigation, and advising on platform operational policies.

※ This article is provided for general informational purposes based on the Supreme Court of South Korea judgment of March 12, 2026 (Case No. 2023da255130) and applicable statutes. Legal outcomes may differ depending on the specific facts of individual cases. For advice on actual matters, please consult a qualified attorney.

9. FAQ

Atlas Legal, based in Incheon Songdo, South Korea, advises domestic and international corporate clients on disability discrimination compliance, platform regulatory strategy, and web accessibility litigation. Our team brings direct experience in Korean corporate law and IT regulatory matters to help companies navigate obligations arising from rulings like this one.

※ The legal information in this article is provided for general informational and advisory purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. Specific legal determinations may vary depending on the facts of individual cases. Please consult a qualified attorney before taking action on any legal matter.