South Korea’s broadcast and communications regulator has launched investigations into 17 online content providers suspected of employing deceptive advertising practices that hinder users’ ability to dismiss unwanted ads. The Broadcast Communications Commission (BCC) announced the fact-finding investigations on February 12, focusing on practices that violate the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Networks Utilization and Information Protection, specifically concerning the obstruction of ad removal.
The BCC’s action comes in response to growing complaints about “un-dismissible” online advertisements – often referred to as floating ads – that cover portions of web pages or smartphone screens. These ads frequently feature obscured or non-functional “close” buttons, or redirect users to the advertiser’s website when the “X” button is clicked, rather than simply disappearing. According to the BCC, these tactics fall under the prohibited practice of “restricting the deletion of advertisements that unduly obscure information other than advertising whereas distributing, posting, or transmitting advertisements.”
The commission identified several common deceptive practices, including the complete absence of a close button, instances where the close button is present but inoperative and scenarios where dismissed ads reappear as the user scrolls through the content. Other violations include deliberately positioning the close button in a difficult-to-reach location or significantly reducing its size, making it hard to click.
This isn’t a new issue for the BCC, which has conducted regular monitoring of online advertising practices. The current investigations were triggered after the same 17 companies were flagged in previous monitoring efforts conducted in the first and second halves of 2025, marking their second offense. The BCC initiated monitoring of 300 news websites last year, leading to the identification of these repeat offenders.
The investigations will determine whether the practices employed by these companies constitute a violation of the law. The BCC has not yet named the 17 companies under investigation. The commission’s statement indicated that it will assess whether the companies’ actions intentionally restricted the ability of users to remove the advertisements.
The move by the BCC reflects a broader effort to address user frustration with intrusive online advertising. News reports indicate that the commission is taking a firmer stance against practices that prioritize advertising revenue over user experience. The BCC has not announced a timeline for the completion of the fact-finding investigations.
