Dr.Now Ban Bill Clears Committee; Startups Decry 'Second Tada Ban Law'

An amendment to the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, dubbed the 'DoctorNow Prevention Act,' has passed a standing committee in the National Assembly, drawing strong protests from the startup industry. This bill, which completely prohibits non-face-to-face medical treatment platforms from obtaining licenses for pharmaceutical wholesale, is being called the 'second Tada Prohibition Act' and faces criticism for hindering innovation. The controversy ignited when DoctorNow began pharmaceutical wholesale with the aim of alleviating the 'pharmacy run-around' (the inconvenience of searching multiple pharmacies). While DoctorNow aimed to enhance patient convenience by legally supplying medicines and providing inventory information, Assemblyman Kim Yoon and the Korean Pharmaceutical Association defined this as a 'new type of rebate' and an 'act of market monopolization.' DoctorNow, however, refutes this, stating that they only receive payment for medicines without preferentially exposing specific pharmacies. Furthermore, as the government (Ministry of Health and Welfare, Fair Trade Commission) had previously determined that this business model was not unfair, the debate over the bill's legitimacy is intensifying. The venture industry criticizes this bill as "over-legislation that prohibits legitimate business based solely on 'concerns' without legal grounds." They point out that it blocks issues that could be sufficiently controlled by existing regulations through a 'pre-emptive regulation' approach. This also contradicts the government's 'negative regulation' stance, drawing criticism for undermining policy credibility. Criticism also continues that the pattern of new industries being blocked by opposition from vested professional groups, similar to LawTalk and Tada, is repeating itself. The Pharmaceutical Association emphasizes preventing platforms from dominating the market and indiscriminately promoting non-face-to-face medical treatment, while stressing the establishment of 'distribution order.' However, the startup industry counters by emphasizing 'patient convenience,' arguing that it "will hinder patients' access to medicines and ultimately harm the public." With the bill awaiting passage in the National Assembly plenary session, attention is focused on whether it will find a balance between innovation and regulation, or become another 'Tada Prohibition Act.' This controversy once again highlights the chronic challenges within South Korea's startup ecosystem.