South Korea's three mobile carriers decided to correct unfair contract clauses that limit their responsibility even in cases involving personal information breaches.

The Fair Trade Commission said on Aug. 6 it asked SK Telecom, KT and LG Uplus to voluntarily correct four types of unfair clauses after reviewing their telecom service terms.

The FTC said it conducted an overall review of the terms, considering the repeated personal data leak incidents and the vast amount of personal information held and managed by telecom operators.

Exemption clauses related to personal information breaches were found in all three companies. The terms included provisions such as not taking responsibility if communications content and information are leaked in unencrypted Wi-Fi sections.

The FTC said such clauses limit an operator's liability for damages stemming from personal information breaches and shift the burden to users, making them invalid under Article 7 of the terms and conditions law. It said operators should bear corresponding responsibility depending on attributable reasons such as intent or negligence when an incident occurs.

All three companies were also flagged for clauses that limit or exempt liability for damages related to service provision. The clauses made users fully responsible whenever they acted with intent or negligence, even when telecom services were not running smoothly, without considering whether the operator was at fault.

The FTC said that when both user and operator are at fault in the course of using the service, responsibility should be apportioned according to each party's share of fault. It said it was unfair for operators to always be exempted simply because users were at fault, and asked the companies to clearly specify grounds for reducing liability rather than grounds for exemption.

In LG Uplus terms, the FTC also found a clause that limited the operator's level of responsibility for a member's ID and password to cases involving the company's intent or gross negligence. The FTC asked it to revise the terms so the scope of responsibility includes damages caused by negligence.

At KT, a clause was flagged that deems members to have agreed if the company provides prior notice when contract terms are revised or grounds for termination arise, and the member does not explicitly express refusal within a certain period.

The FTC asked KT to revise the terms so implied consent is established only when it clearly notifies members that a failure to express intent within a reasonable period is deemed an expression of intent.