Coupang criticized over mismatched Korean, English statements

(Coupang)

Coupang is facing controversy after subtle but consequential differences were found between the Korean- and English-language versions of a statement it released on Dec. 26 regarding a massive consumer data leak, raising concerns that the translations convey materially different messages.

In the statement posted on its website in both languages, Coupang said its investigation into the leak “was not a self-led probe,” stressing that it was conducted “under government instructions and in close daily cooperation with the Korean government over several weeks.” The company added that incorrect claims that Coupang investigated the matter independently without government oversight are continuing to fuel unnecessary anxiety.

The statement was issued a day after the Ministry of Science and ICT publicly pushed back against Coupang’s disclosure of its own investigation results on Dec. 25, saying the company’s claims were unilateral assertions not verified by the joint public-private investigation team. Coupang’s follow-up statement appeared to be a direct rebuttal, released just one day after the ministry expressed discomfort with the company’s narrative.

On Dec. 25, Coupang said it had secured a confession from the individual responsible for the leak, recovered devices used in the hacking incident, and found no evidence of external data transmission. The company said the perpetrator accessed data on 33 million customers but stored information related to only about 3,000 individuals.

The controversy stems from differences in wording between the Korean and English versions of the Dec. 26 statement. The Korean text refers to “unnecessary anxiety,” while the English version describes the situation as “false insecurity.” Similarly, a Korean passage stating that Coupang faced “unjust criticism” from government agencies, the National Assembly and parts of the media was rendered in English as “falsely accused,” a phrase carrying a stronger legal connotation than the neutral term “criticism.”

Observers note that while the Korean version frames public concern as a social reaction to the leak and appeals emotionally by emphasizing unfair treatment, the English version places greater emphasis on the idea that public anxiety is rooted in incorrect information. In translating “unjust criticism,” the English statement opts for “accuse” rather than “criticize,” effectively recasting domestic scrutiny as false allegations. This choice introduces a legalistic nuance that could be interpreted as portraying domestic criticism as groundless liability claims.

Differences also appear in how Coupang’s relationship with the government is described. A Korean sentence stating that on Dec. 1, Coupang met with the government and pledged full cooperation was translated in English as On December 1, the government approached Coupang and asked for full cooperation. While the Korean version emphasizes Coupang’s proactive stance, the English text suggests a government-led investigation to which Coupang responded.

Analysts say the stronger language in the English version may have been deliberately chosen to reassure overseas investors that legal risks related to the leak have been contained. On the New York Stock Exchange, shares of Coupang Inc. closed up 6.45 percent on Dec. 26, the first trading day after the company announced its investigation results. The rally was widely attributed to Coupang’s claim that only about 3,000 customer records were actually retained.

U.S. media outlets largely echoed Coupang’s disclosure, reporting that the damage was not as severe as feared and that the announcement could help restore consumer trust. The Korean government’s position — that Coupang’s claims have not been independently verified — was largely absent from those reports.