The court is considering a plan to allow financial institutions to scrape information, reversing its earlier decision to impose a full ban starting on the 20th. This move avoids the scenario feared by the financial sector: consumers having to personally submit documents. The court's sudden reversal just two weeks before implementation is seen as a response to ongoing concerns that consumers would face increased inconvenience and higher costs, such as interest rates.
According to the financial sector on the 10th, the court has recently begun reviewing a plan to allow scraping for companies and information where applications were filed citing "public inconvenience." On the 7th, the court gathered details from the Financial Services Commission and the Credit Information Bureau regarding which types of information and companies require a delay in the scraping ban.
Previously, the Personal Information Protection Commission mandated that, under amendments to the Enforcement Decree of the Personal Information Protection Act, financial institutions would be restricted from scraping information held by public system operators starting on the 20th, requiring a shift to the API (Application Programming Interface) method instead. However, for institutional investors where APIs have not yet been established, the commission proposed temporarily allowing scraping until such systems are built, provided that prior consultations between financial institutions and institutional investors take place.
However, the court insisted on a full ban on scraping starting from the 20th, citing its own review of laws such as the Family Relations Registration Act rather than the Personal Information Protection Act, arguing that these cases do not fall under the scope for prior consultation. Consequently, there was a risk that consumers would have to personally obtain and submit court documents used in financial transactions, such as family relationship certificates, to financial institutions.
For example, banks have previously scraped family and marriage relationship certificates when customers applied for housing loans, guiding newlyweds or multi-child households toward policy loans with preferential interest rates. If scraping were blocked, financial institutions would be unable to verify this information until customers submitted documents directly, potentially causing them to miss out on benefits. Financial institutions would also need to deploy additional staff to verify submitted documents, inevitably leading to longer processing times for customers and higher costs such as increased interest rates.
Growing concerns over such consumer inconvenience prompted the court to dramatically shift its stance just two weeks before the scraping ban was set to take effect. The Financial Services Commission and the Personal Information Protection Commission plan to hold meetings with relevant financial industry associations this week based on data submitted on the 7th. At these meetings, they are expected to discuss specific methods and targets for delaying the scraping ban and convey their opinions to the court.
A Financial Services Commission official stated, "We are aware of the concerns raised by financial institutions and are in discussions with the court. Once consultations are completed, we will inform the financial institutions."
While the worst-case scenario has been averted, criticism is directed at both the court and the Personal Information Protection Commission. The court had effectively turned a blind eye to the fact that financial institutions had long been scraping family relationship certificates from the court system. However, after receiving the Enforcement Decree of the Personal Information Protection Act, it announced a policy to completely block scraping on the 16th of last month based on its "own legal interpretation." Following continued criticism, the court changed its "legal interpretation" in just three weeks.
Given that this issue originated from amendments to the Enforcement Decree of the Personal Information Protection Act, the Personal Information Protection Commission cannot claim complete innocence. The commission stated that it does not have jurisdiction over the court's measures or the specific targets involved. On the 28th of last month, the commission also explained at the National Assembly that "since this is not a matter under its purview, it is difficult to compel the Supreme Court."
A financial sector official remarked, "The State Council's Office of Coordination and the National Assembly's Political Affairs Committee have consistently conveyed voices regarding consumer inconvenience to the court. It cannot be denied that both the Personal Information Protection Commission, which triggered this incident, and the court acting on it were hasty."
In response, the Personal Information Protection Commission explained, "We are actively supporting prior consultations to minimize public inconvenience and assist businesses. We plan to support a safe transition through public institutional investor consultations, including agreed-upon scraping methods and APIs."
in FINANCE
