SEOUL — The National Assembly of the Republic of Korea issued a formal statement on July 3, expressing deep regret and refuting claims made by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee regarding a parliamentary hearing held last year concerning a massive data breach at the e-commerce giant, Coupang.

In its recent report, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee criticized the South Korean parliamentary hearing, alleging that the proceedings were “openly hostile and discriminatory” toward a U.S.-owned corporation. The report suggested that the treatment of Coupang officials during the session reflected a bias against American companies operating in South Korea.

In response, the National Assembly firmly rejected these allegations, labeling them as based on incomplete facts that fail to account for the constitutional mandate and the standard procedural operations of the Korean legislative body.

“The joint hearing regarding the Coupang data breach was conducted legally in accordance with the National Assembly Act, fulfilling our constitutional duty,” the Assembly stated. “It was not an exceptional measure targeting a specific company, but a standard operational procedure for the National Assembly to examine complex pending issues.”

The statement further criticized the U.S. House report for drawing conclusions based on isolated segments and specific remarks made by individual lawmakers during the proceedings. The National Assembly argued that such an analysis neglects the broader context of the marathon Q&A session, the significant public interest in the issue, and the legislative body’s fundamental role in state oversight.

Addressing specific claims regarding the treatment of witnesses, the Assembly emphasized that the protocols followed—such as the swearing-in process, the issuance of legal warnings for perjury, and the adjustment of response times—are standard procedures applied uniformly to all witnesses. “Interpreting these as discriminatory actions against a specific company or individual is factually incorrect,” the statement asserted.

Regarding the controversy over language support, the National Assembly clarified that it provided independent translation services to facilitate accurate communication and ensure the smooth conduct of the meeting. It dismissed accusations that these measures were intended to limit the testimony of witnesses, asserting instead that they were essential for ensuring the accuracy and efficiency of the proceedings.

The controversy stems from a joint hearing held in December of last year, led by the National Assembly’s Science, ICT, Broadcasting, and Communications Committee. During this session, lawmakers grilled Coupang officials, including interim representative Harold Rogers, regarding a large-scale personal data leak that had sparked widespread public concern.

The National Assembly concluded its statement by reaffirming its commitment to protecting personal information and serving the public interest. It expressed a desire for better international understanding of South Korea’s legislative processes, noting that it will continue to work toward ensuring that the international community’s perception of its parliamentary operations is based on objective facts and open communication.

This rebuttal marks a significant diplomatic exchange over the interpretation of legislative oversight, highlighting the sensitivities surrounding the treatment of multinational corporations in the domestic legal landscape. As both nations continue to navigate complex economic and legal ties, the incident underscores the importance of clear communication and mutual understanding regarding the distinct parliamentary functions of each country.