Jeon, a 34-year-old office worker, recently purchased a 12-month YouTube Premium subscription for 75,000 won-about 6,000 won per month-after hearing about the affordable deal on an online video service (OTT) sharing site. Jeon was satisfied with the price, which was less than half the regular monthly rate of 14,900 won, but the satisfaction was short-lived. After just three months, Jeon's account was suspended. "I contacted customer service, but only received automated responses. There has been no account recovery or refund at all," Jeon said in frustration.

Homepage of Company A selling online video service (OTT) subscriptions such as YouTube Premium. Online capture

원본보기 아이콘

Recently, as Google has strengthened its crackdown on YouTube Premium family sharing and overseas bypass accounts, agencies that resold these subscriptions at low prices have been shutting down their services one after another, resulting in a surge of consumer damages. However, it is difficult for consumers to seek remedies through police investigations, so caution is advised.

Account Suspended Three Months After OTT Subscription Payment
Customer Service Auto-Response Remains Silent
Frustrated Users Mobilize Collective Action

According to The Asia Business Daily's coverage on January 5, about 170 users who suffered similar damages as Jeon have gathered in a KakaoTalk open chat room to prepare collective action against Company A. The amount of damage per person ranges from 50,000 to 70,000 won. The company’s website is currently inaccessible, and sales of YouTube Premium products have been suspended. The Seoul Electronic Commerce Center has classified the site as a high-risk business and is recommending that users report it, while also continuing to receive reports about other sharing companies.

The problem is that even when victims go to the police, it is difficult to find a clear solution. The police have stated that it is difficult to apply fraud charges to the company. This is because the company did not intend to simply take the money from the beginning, but actually provided the service for a certain period before suspending it due to YouTube’s policy changes-an external factor-which makes it hard to prove intent to deceive.

Experts point out that such OTT account-sharing transactions exist in a legal gray area with little protection, and that buyers themselves may also bear some responsibility.

"If there was no intent to deceive, it is difficult to apply fraud charges"
"If the buyer also knew about the 'loophole,' there is a possibility of disadvantage"

Kim Dowoo, professor of police administration at Kyungnam University, said, "For fraud charges to be established, the company would have had to accept money without the intention or ability to provide the service from the outset. In this case, the service was blocked due to changes in Google’s policy, so criminal punishment is complicated." "Consumers likely recognized that this was not an official channel-in other words, that it was a loophole-and purchased the service anyway. Legally, this could be seen as willful negligence, so if they later face disadvantages such as account suspension by YouTube headquarters, it may be difficult for them to receive any remedy," he explained.