Game Industry Act Lawyer
Game Industry Act Lawyer | Understanding the Investigation and Sanction Process
The Act on the Promotion of the Game Industry (게임산업진흥에관한법률, the "Game Industry Act") regulates game ratings, probability-type item disclosure, prohibited gambling-like games, and the operation of arcades and game rooms. A violation can lead to a corrective order, business suspension, revocation of registration, or criminal referral, often initiated after an on-site inspection by the Game Rating and Administration Committee or local government. Because sanctions are issued through an administrative process with strict response deadlines, how you respond to the initial notice of intended disposition often determines whether the sanction can be reduced or reversed.
Game Industry Act | Common Types of Game Industry Act Violations
Most enforcement actions fall into a handful of recurring categories. Knowing which provision is at issue changes both the likely sanction and the available defenses.
Games must receive a content rating from the Game Rating and Administration Committee before distribution, and providing or advertising an unrated game, or one materially different from its rated content, is prohibited (게임산업진흥에관한법률 제32조). This is one of the most common grounds for both administrative sanction and criminal referral against small and mid-size developers.
Since the 2023 amendment, operators must disclose the probability of obtaining paid in-game items to users in the manner prescribed by Presidential Decree, and non-disclosure or false disclosure is a separate violation subject to corrective order and, if the order is not followed, criminal liability (게임산업진흥에관한법률 제33조 제2항, 제38조 제9항, 제45조 제11호). This has become a major enforcement focus since 2024.
Games that use random numbers to determine winnings, allow the exchange of game results for money or valuables, or otherwise function like gambling devices are prohibited outright, regardless of rating (게임산업진흥에관한법률 제32조 제1항 제7호). Arcade operators using point-conversion or gift-certificate schemes are frequently targeted here.
Internet cafes, arcades, and certain game providers must file a business report or registration with the relevant local government before operation, and failure to do so, or operating after a registration is revoked, is separately sanctionable (게임산업진흥에관한법률 제25조, 제26조).
Operators of adult-only arcades or games that allow entry or play by minors face sanctions distinct from the rating violations above, and this is a frequent secondary charge added during on-site inspections (게임산업진흥에관한법률 제28조).
One inspection can trigger multiple charges at once
In practice, a single on-site inspection often uncovers more than one issue simultaneously — for example, an unrated game combined with missing probability disclosure. Because each violation carries its own sanction track, it matters which ones are formally cited in the notice of intended disposition, and whether the facts support all of them.
Game Industry Act | How the Rating System Works and Where Disputes Arise
Rating disputes are rarely about whether a rating exists, but about whether the distributed content matches what was rated, and who is responsible when it does not.
Self-rating vs. Committee rating
Most mobile and PC games are self-rated through the self-rating system operated by platform holders under Committee authorization, while certain categories (adult content, arcade games) must go through the Game Rating and Administration Committee directly (게임산업진흥에관한법률 제21조). A common dispute is whether a self-rated title should have gone through the Committee instead.
Content changes after rating
Updates, new modes, or added items that materially change gameplay after the initial rating can require a re-rating, and continuing to distribute the updated version without one is treated the same as distributing an unrated game. Whether a given update counts as "material" is frequently the central factual dispute in these cases.
Who bears responsibility in a publishing structure
When a developer, publisher, and platform are separate entities, the notice of intended disposition may be directed at whichever party the Committee identifies as the actual distributor, and that determination is contestable through the opinion submission process before the sanction becomes final.
Game Industry Act | Probability-Type Item Disclosure Obligations
Probability disclosure enforcement is relatively new and the standards for what counts as adequate disclosure are still being tested case by case.
What must be disclosed and where
Operators must disclose the probability of obtaining each paid probability-type item within the game client, on the game's webpage, and in advertisements, in the manner prescribed by Presidential Decree (게임산업진흥에관한법률 제33조 제2항·제4항). Disputes often center on whether disclosure was sufficiently accessible or was buried in a way that arguably fails the standard.
Complete-selection items and probability changes
Special rules apply to items that change probability after a certain number of draws ("pity systems") and to bundled items, and mistakes in disclosing these mechanics are a frequent basis for corrective orders even where a disclosure exists in some form.
Escalation from corrective order to criminal referral
A first violation typically results in a corrective order with a deadline to fix the disclosure, but failure to comply, or a pattern of violations, can lead to referral for criminal investigation. Responding substantively to the corrective order within the given period is usually the last opportunity to avoid that escalation.
Game Industry Act | Administrative Sanctions and How They Are Contested
Sanctions range from a warning to permanent revocation, and each level has its own defense strategy and appeal window.
Sanction ladder: warning to revocation
Depending on severity and repetition, sanctions escalate from a corrective order or warning, to business suspension of a set number of days, to revocation of registration, with the specific ranges set out in the enforcement decree's sanction schedule (게임산업진흥에관한법률 제35조, 같은 법 시행령 별표). Prior violations within a set look-back period increase the severity of the next sanction.
Opinion submission before the sanction is finalized
Before finalizing most sanctions, the administrative agency must notify the operator of the intended disposition and grant an opportunity to submit a written opinion or request a hearing (행정절차법 제21조, 제22조). This is often the single most effective stage to present evidence or argue for a reduced sanction, before the sanction is formally issued.
Challenging a finalized sanction
Once a sanction is issued, it can be challenged through an administrative appeal to the relevant appeals commission or through administrative litigation seeking cancellation of the disposition, generally within 90 days of receiving notice of the disposition (행정소송법 제20조). A request to suspend enforcement of a business suspension order can also be filed alongside the litigation if the suspension would cause irreparable harm before the case is decided.
Game Industry Act | From Notice to Resolution
We review the on-site inspection report, notice of intended disposition, or criminal referral notice you received, and identify which specific provisions are cited and what evidence supports them.
Within the opinion submission period, we prepare a written opinion addressing the factual and legal basis of the proposed sanction, and request a hearing where appropriate to present evidence directly.
Where a violation is not seriously contested, we focus on evidence of corrective measures already taken, absence of prior violations, and mitigating circumstances to seek a reduced sanction such as a shorter suspension period.
If the disposition is issued as proposed, we assess whether to file an administrative appeal or administrative litigation for cancellation, and whether an application to suspend enforcement is needed to prevent the business suspension from taking effect immediately.
Where the same facts are also referred for criminal investigation, we coordinate the administrative defense with the criminal defense strategy so that statements made in one proceeding do not undermine the other.
Game Industry Act | How Fees Are Structured
An initial review of the inspection report or notice of intended disposition to determine likely outcomes and the realistic scope for reducing or reversing the sanction.
Set according to the stage of the case (opinion submission only, hearing representation, or full administrative appeal/litigation) and the complexity of the underlying facts, such as the number of violations cited and whether a parallel criminal referral exists.
Where applicable, discussed separately depending on the concrete outcome sought, such as a reduction in suspension period or cancellation of a revocation, rather than tied to any guaranteed result.
Costs such as expert opinions on technical or probability-mechanic issues, translation of foreign platform materials, and filing fees for administrative appeal or litigation are billed separately as incurred.
※ Costs vary depending on case complexity and specific circumstances; exact fees will be provided during consultation. No specific outcome is guaranteed.
Game Industry Act | Self-Check Before You Respond
1️⃣ If You Received an On-Site Inspection Notice
- Have you confirmed exactly which provisions the inspectors cited as potential violations?
- Did you preserve the game client version, update logs, and disclosure screens as they existed at the time of inspection?
- Have you identified whether the inspection was conducted by the Committee, a local government, or the police?
- Is there a deadline attached to any request for materials or explanation that you need to meet?
2️⃣ If You Received a Notice of Intended Disposition
- Have you calculated the exact deadline for submitting a written opinion?
- Do you understand whether a hearing has been offered, and whether requesting one would help your case?
- Have you gathered evidence of any corrective steps already taken since the alleged violation?
- Do you know whether this is a first violation or whether prior sanctions exist that could increase severity?
3️⃣ If a Business Suspension Order Has Already Been Issued
- Have you confirmed the exact start and end dates of the suspension?
- Would the suspension cause harm serious enough to justify an application to suspend enforcement?
- Have you calculated the 90-day period for filing administrative litigation from the date you received notice?
- Are employees, franchisees, or platform partners affected in ways that need to be addressed separately?
4️⃣ If Probability Disclosure Is the Issue
- Can you show exactly what disclosure existed in the client, webpage, and advertisements at the relevant time?
- Have you reviewed whether pity-system or bundled-item mechanics were disclosed according to the designated format?
- If a corrective order was issued, have you implemented and documented the fix within the given deadline?
