온라인 플랫폼의 법적 지위: 귀하는 중개인인가요, 서비스 제공자인가요?

Spoiler alert: if you think you’re “just a platform,” the law might think otherwise.

Introduction: Platforms in the Legal Spotlight

In the not-so-distant past, if you ran a website that allowed users to post content or connect with sellers, you’d shrug and say, “I’m just the platform — not my circus, not my monkeys.” But regulators around the world — especially in the European Union and the United States — are increasingly challenging that logic.

Enter the ongoing legal debate: is your platform an intermediary, merely connecting users without interfering? Or are you a service provider, actively shaping, influencing, or controlling transactions and content?

What Is an Intermediary, Really?

Legally speaking, an intermediary is a digital actor that simply transmits or temporarily stores information on behalf of users. Think of it as the digital version of a postal service — you carry the message, but you don’t read or rewrite it.

Under Section 230 in the US and Article 14 of the EU’s e-Commerce Directive, intermediaries enjoy broad immunity from liability for user-generated content — provided they don’t meddle.

What About Service Providers?

A service provider, in legal terms, offers more than neutral hosting. These platforms often structure, influence, or participate in transactions. That includes:

Setting rules or fees for sellers
Recommending products via algorithms
Providing customer service on behalf of vendors
Processing payments directly

You’re no longer a digital Switzerland. You’re a business participant — and with great control comes great responsibility.

Why the Distinction Matters (a Lot)

Depending on which category you fall into, the law may view you as:

Legal Status	Liability for User Activity	Obligations Under Law	Examples
Intermediary	Limited or no liability	Minimal (reactive duties only)	Dropbox, Reddit (with caveats)
Service Provider	Full or partial liability	Proactive compliance required	Airbnb, Amazon Marketplace, Uber

For example, under the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), online platforms that act more like service providers must verify sellers, remove illegal content quickly, be transparent about recommendation systems, and offer appeals for content moderation.

When Platforms Blur the Line

Example 1: The Online Marketplace

You run a platform for vintage record sales. You don’t sell, but:

You set a 10% commission
Promote listings via algorithm
Handle customer complaints

You’ve just crossed into service provider territory.

Example 2: The Review Aggregator

You aggregate hotel reviews but also:

Rank hotels as “editor’s picks”
Highlight sponsored content
Let users book directly

Congratulations — you influence the transaction. You’re a service provider.

EU vs. US: Same Debate, Different Flavor

In the European Union:
– Focus on user protection
– DSA and DMA introduce strict obligations

In the United States:
– Section 230 offers broader immunity
– But legal reform is heating up
– Courts are reevaluating what qualifies as ‘neutral platform behavior’

자신의 위치를 아는 방법

콘텐츠 또는 판매에서 직접적인 이익을 얻습니까?
콘텐츠 공개 여부를 관리하시나요?
추가 서비스를 제공합니까?
콘텐츠를 중재하거나 큐레이팅하십니까?

대부분 '예'라면 단순한 플랫폼 그 이상입니다. 그에 따라 행동할 때입니다.

플랫폼 소유자를 위한 팁: 법적 지뢰밭 헤쳐나가기

약관에 플랫폼 역할을 명확하게 정의하십시오.
알고리즘과 광고에 투명성을 유지하세요
조정 도구 및 항소 설정
플랫폼이 성장함에 따라 법적 전략을 조정하십시오.

애매한 영역: 몇 가지 법적 난제

- 임베디드 위젯: 누가 책임이 있습니까?
– 유해 콘텐츠의 알고리즘 증폭
- AI 생성 콘텐츠 소유권 및 책임

이것들은 규제 당국이 여전히 파악하고 있는 질문들입니다. 당신이 시험 사례가 될 수도 있습니다.

결론: 법 이전에 플랫폼을 파악하라

2025년에는 '단순한 플랫폼'이라는 것은 존재하지 않습니다.

- 중립적인 경우: 중개인.
- 참여 시: 서비스 제공업체.
- 확실하지 않다면: 위험에 처해 있습니다.

스스로에게 물어보세요: 우리는 사람들을 연결하고 있나요 — 아니면 거래의 일부인가요?