Part of the AI Regulation News hub.
Korea's competition regulator has listed a claim that artificial intelligence made a product safer among the advertising claims a business must be able to substantiate, in a notice that took effect on 3 September 2026
The change is one example added to a list, which is a small edit with a wide reach. As of 3 September, if your marketing says AI made something safer, that is an advertising claim you can be asked to prove, on a clock measured in days.
Bottom line: The Korea Fair Trade Commission has amended its operating notice on advertising substantiation to include, among the examples of claims relating to safety, environment or new technology, expressions to the effect that new technology has been used, giving as its example a claim that something is safer thanks to artificial intelligence. The amendment took effect on 3 September 2026 by Korean time. Its publication in the official gazette is unconfirmed.
Who this affects: Any business advertising to Korean consumers whose marketing attributes a safety benefit to AI. That reaches beyond AI companies to any advertiser whose marketing attributes a safety benefit to the technology.
Issue date: Amended and effective 3 September 2026, both dates printed on the instrument itself.
What changed: The substantiation duty already existed under the Labelling and Advertising Act. What the amendment added, on 3 September, is an AI safety claim named as an example of the kind of claim it covers, which removes the argument that such marketing is mere puffery.
Analysis: The interesting detail is which heading the AI example sits under. It is not filed under performance claims. It sits under safety, environment and new technology, alongside safety certifications and eco-labels, which is a more demanding neighbourhood than a marketing team might expect.
Primary sources: KFTC administrative rule notice for 고시 제2026-15호 · KFTC press release on the amendment
- Instrument
- Partial amendment to the operating notice on substantiation of the content of labelling and advertising
- Citation
- 공정거래위원회고시 제2026-15호
- Authority
- Korea Fair Trade Commission
- Jurisdiction
- Republic of Korea
- Dates
- Amended 3 September 2026; effective 3 September 2026, per the header and the supplementary provision on the instrument
- Status
- Adopted and in force from 3 September 2026 by Korean time. Publication in the official gazette is unconfirmed.
- Bindingness
- An administrative notice operating under the Act on Fair Labelling and Advertising. It sets out how the Commission applies a substantiation duty that the Act already imposes.
- Editorial Note
- Informational analysis for working professionals, not legal advice. Confirm how any rule applies to your situation with qualified counsel.
- Primary source
- https://www.ftc.go.kr/www/selectBbsNttView.do?bordCd=3&key=12&nttSn=47960
What the notice actually adds
The Korea Fair Trade Commission has issued a partial amendment to its operating notice on substantiation of the content of labelling and advertising. The header on the instrument reads 공정거래위원회고시 제2026-15호, amended 3 September 2026, and the last of its five stacked supplementary provisions states that the notice takes effect on 3 September 2026. That date has now arrived in Korea. The supplementary provisions run one per amendment back to 2007, so the operative commencement is the final entry, not the first one a reader meets.
The change that matters is a single example added to a list. Under the heading for content relating to safety, the environment or new technology, the notice gives examples of the claims it covers. The fourth is expressions to the effect that new technology has been used, and the example given is a claim that something is safer thanks to artificial intelligence.
The company it keeps is the point. The other examples under that heading are claims of having passed a safety inspection, marks and certifications for safety, environment or new technology, and environmental claims about recycling or reduced carbon emissions. Those are all claims a business is expected to be able to evidence on request.
The trigger is a claim of having used the technology, not a claim about how well it performs. That is a narrower hook than it first appears, and also a more common one: marketing rarely quantifies an AI system's accuracy, but it very often says a product is better or safer because AI is in it.
The clock, and what the Commission can do
The notice sets the timetable for producing evidence. The submission period for substantiation material is in principle within 15 days of the day the request is received. The qualifier translated here as in principle is in the original.
An extension is available where a natural disaster or another justifiable ground applies. The notice writes those grounds out: merger or acquisition, commencement of rehabilitation proceedings, bankruptcy, seizure or temporary custody of books and evidentiary documents by an authorised body, and serious disruption to a business from fire or disaster. Where the Commission accepts one, the period can be extended to within 15 days of the day the ground ceases.
Then the consequence, and its exact shape matters. Where a business has not submitted the material within the period including any extension, and is still running the advertising, the Commission may order that the advertising stop until the material is submitted.
Three things about that sentence are easy to get wrong. The verb is may, not must. The condition is that the advertising is continuing, not simply that a deadline passed. And the power itself is not created here: the notice locates it in the Labelling and Advertising Act, with a separate administrative fine track under the Act's penalty provision. The notice channels a statutory power rather than inventing one.
Where the press release and the instrument diverge
This desk read the Commission's press release and then the amended notice itself. They do not agree, and the differences are the kind that would send a practitioner to the wrong place.
The release frames the change as reaching products that emphasise AI performance. The instrument does not say that. The AI example sits under safety, environment and new technology, and the expression it gives is about having used the technology. A compliance team briefed from the release would look for performance claims and miss the safety framing entirely.
The release presents the stop-advertising consequence as following from a failure to submit. The instrument conditions it on the advertising continuing, makes it discretionary, and attributes the power to the statute.
The release also points to a provision of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act enforcement decree for the justifiable grounds. That cross-reference does not appear in the notice. The grounds are written out in the notice's own text instead, and a search of the full instrument returns no reference to that decree.
None of this makes the release worthless. It is the Commission talking about its own decision, which removes journalistic mediation but is not the operative text and cannot be relied on for scope or conditions. The instrument is what a business will be judged against.
What to do about it
Search your Korean marketing for the shape of claim the notice describes: a statement that a product is safer because it uses AI, or more broadly that new technology has been used. That phrasing, not a performance number, is what the example captures.
Assemble the evidence before you are asked rather than after. A 15-day clock that starts on a request is not a research window, and the extension grounds are narrow and mostly catastrophic.
Know that continuing to run the advertising is what exposes you to a stop order. A business that pulls the claim while it assembles evidence is in a materially different position from one that keeps running it.
Read the notice rather than the release. That is a general habit and this instrument is a good argument for it, but it is also specific advice here, because the release will send you looking for the wrong category of claim.
One point of proportion. This is one example added to a list in an administrative notice, not a new AI advertising regime. The substantiation duty already applied. What changed is that a regulator has now written the AI version of the claim down, which makes it harder to argue the claim was never the sort of thing anyone was expected to prove.
The Korea Fair Trade Commission's notice 제2026-15호, amended and effective 3 September 2026, adds one example to the list of advertising claims that attract the substantiation duty: expressions to the effect that new technology has been used, illustrated by a claim that something is safer thanks to artificial intelligence. It sits under the heading for safety, environment and new technology, alongside safety inspections and eco-certifications, not under performance claims. Substantiation material is due in principle within 15 days of a request, extendable to within 15 days of the day a justifiable ground ceases, and where a business has not submitted within that period and is still running the advertising, the Commission may order the advertising to stop until it does. That power is discretionary and comes from the Labelling and Advertising Act rather than from this notice. The Commission's press release differs from its own instrument in three places: it frames the change as covering AI performance claims, presents the stop order as following from non-submission alone, and cites an enforcement decree provision that does not appear anywhere in the notice.
Source File
https://www.ftc.go.kr/www/selectBbsNttView.do?bordCd=3&key=12&nttSn=47960
The notice is served across two surfaces and you need both. The KFTC board page carries the notice number, title and effective date; the amended text itself is in the attached file and is not on the page. Get the attachment, not the press release. Confirm four things. The header line reading 시행 2026. 09. 03. and 공정거래위원회고시 제2026-15호, 2026. 09. 03., 일부개정. Under the heading 안전 또는 환경, 신기술과 관련된 내용인 경우, the fourth example, 인공지능(AI) 기술로 더 안전한 등 신기술을 활용하였다는 표현. At Ⅳ.2.가, the sentence setting the submission period 원칙적으로 실증자료를 요청받은 날부터 15일 이내로 한다. And at Ⅳ.2.나, the extension grounds written out in full and the closing 다만 clause ending 중지를 명할 수 있다. Note that the file carries five supplementary provisions stacked by amendment; the governing commencement is the last, 부칙<제2026-00호, 2026.09.03.>, whose number is a drafting placeholder that the header and the board notice both give as 제2026-15호. Note that the notice is structured in Roman-numeral sections rather than numbered articles, so cite by section and item. If the attachment will not open, the HWPX file is a ZIP archive and Contents/section0.xml holds the text.
인공지능(AI) 기술로 더 안전한 등 신기술을 활용하였다는 표현. In English: expressions to the effect that new technology has been used, such as safer thanks to artificial intelligence technology. 공정거래위원회고시 제2026-15호
FAQ
What exactly triggers the duty?
A claim that new technology has been used, with the notice's own example being an expression to the effect that something is safer thanks to AI. It sits under the heading for content relating to safety, the environment or new technology, not under performance claims.
Is this a new obligation?
No. The substantiation duty comes from the Act on Fair Labelling and Advertising and already applied. The notice adds the AI version of the claim as a worked example of what the duty covers.
How long do I have to respond?
In principle within 15 days of receiving the request. An extension is available on narrow grounds including merger or acquisition, rehabilitation proceedings, bankruptcy, seizure of books by an authorised body, and serious disruption from fire or disaster, running to within 15 days of the day that ground ceases.
Can the Commission order my advertising stopped?
It may, and two conditions matter. The material must not have been submitted within the period including any extension, and the advertising must still be running. The notice attributes the power to the Labelling and Advertising Act rather than creating it, and there is a separate administrative fine track.
Does the press release describe this accurately?
Not in three respects. It frames the change as reaching claims that emphasise AI performance, where the instrument places the example under safety and new technology. It presents the stop order as following from non-submission, where the instrument also requires the advertising to be continuing. And it cites an enforcement decree provision for the extension grounds that does not appear anywhere in the notice.
Is it in force?
Yes, from 3 September 2026 by Korean time. Note that the notice carries five stacked supplementary provisions, one per amendment going back to 2007; the commencement that governs is the last, not the first. Publication in the official gazette is unconfirmed.
Related briefings
Sponsored Training
Practical AI training for regulated professionals, built around verification, documentation and a defensible process. See the courses.