The delivery fee disclosure service was introduced to ensure the consumer’s right to know and to make delivery platforms compete in lowering delivery prices, and as a result to stabilize the soaring delivery fee. The government discloses commissions of delivery platforms once a month to help consumers compare delivery fees by platforms at one glance, and to induce a healthy competition of platforms. However, the disclosure service cannot be a solution to reducing delivery fees, cannot accurately survey and compare delivery fees, and does not provide consumers with practical information. Therefore, the ineffective and abortive delivery fee disclosure system should be abolished.

Firstly, the delivery fee disclosure system does not contribute to the fundamental resolution to controlling delivery fees. The government claimed that the system will naturally strike up a price war between platforms, but the platform’s actual part in the delivery process is to merely intermediate between consumers, restaurants, and couriers. For bundle delivery, not one-order-per-trip services, it is the delivery agencies that hire couriers and set delivery fees. For each delivery order, the restaurant and consumer separately pay an arranged fee according to the division ratio determined by the restaurant owner. However, the current delivery fee disclosure system does not count the entire delivery fee, but only a part to be paid by the consumer. Therefore, unless delivery agencies lower the delivery fee itself, the system will only cause competition between restaurant owners to increase their burden of the delivery fee. The system only puts pressure on already burdened restaurant owners who are already paying the platforms’ brokerage fees. In other words, the claim of pursuing competition between delivery platforms through the disclosure system lacks cogency. A more essential factor in the rise of delivery costs in general is the shortage of riders, which has become insufficient compared to ever-growing demand. The absolute and relative demand for riders increased due to the rapid increase of delivery orders caused by people staying home during parts of the COVID-19 pandemic and the overheated competition for one-order-per-trip delivery. However, since many delivery drivers left their jobs after the industrial accident insurance and employment insurance in the special employment support industry became mandatory, the supply of riders is insufficient. As such, the disclosure system does not contribute to the reduction in delivery costs.

Secondly, it is difficult to accurately compare and present delivery costs only by the delivery fee disclosure system. The disclosure system cannot avoid criticism that it is just bureaucratic nonsense. This is because delivery fees vary widely depending on individual orders, and it is difficult to measure the fees that fluctuate depending on various conditions. In fact, delivery costs are set in consideration of a lot of factors such as weather, distance, order time, and volume of order etc. In some cases, it may be cheaper overall to use a one-order-per-trip service even if the customer has to pay a little more in delivery fees. The sample of the disclosure system’s survey is a simple parallel comparison of delivery costs by distance, at lunchtime, over two days in a month, of ordering from a chicken or tteokbokki franchise from specific addresses in Seoul and Gyeonggi-do Province. In other words, the survey sample does not consider enough variables. Even if the disclosure system does successfully figure out the accurate price of each restaurant item by considering all variables mentioned, the measurement is still unfeasible when it comes to considering the price policies of each store. The division ratio of delivery fees between the consumer and restaurant owner, and the delivery fee charging system that each delivery platform contracted with the restaurant owner differs from store to store. As a result, the analysis by the deprived disclosure system fails to provide a helpful answer for consumers. The conclusion of the press release published in July by the Korea National Council of Consumer Organization (KNCCO) was that "the smart comparison and choice of consumers is important because the one-order-per-trip service is not necessarily more expensive than the bundle delivery service."

Finally, the information provided by the current delivery fee disclosure system cannot properly guarantee the consumers’ right to know, because of errors and low accessibility in research. The major errors include publishing incorrect statistics and not distinguishing bundle delivery services from one-order-per-trip services. The data by the KNCCO in February this year said that if someone orders tteokbokki from Jungnang-gu, Seoul, the delivery cost would be 7,500 won from Baemin One, 6,000 won from Coupang Eats, and 2,000 won from Yogiyo. However, this data was not based upon 2~3km in linear distance, but instead 3~4km total driving distance, which means the sample was incorrectly set since a premium (which its charging system differs by platform) is imposed for delivery service over 2~3km in a straight line. However, the KNCCO did not discuss this error until an official of Baemin One protested. Meanwhile, Baemin One and Coupang Eats are mostly named first in the first item in the monthly report, "the app with highest delivery cost". However, that is the deserved result since they are both one-order-per-trip services. The most used delivery apps, Baedal Minjok and Yogiyo each operate a premium service called Baemin One and Yogiyo Express that delivers only one order at a time, and Coupang Eats had done one-order-per-trip services since their very first launch. The higher cost of premium services than bundle services is obvious, and thus it is wrong to compare the price of the two different services in parallel. On the other hand, the consumers’ accessibility to the investigation results is very low. This is because the monthly report is published on the KNCCO Price Information Service page since the investigation is done by the Price Monitoring Center of the KNCCO. Therefore, customers rather prefer a practical method of comparing delivery fees in person. One employee of a delivery app said in an interview with Sisa Journal in February, "The delivery cost can be checked by consumers directly accessing Baemin or Coupang Eats apps, but I don't get why they are disclosing delivery fees once a month."

First, the delivery fee disclosure system does not contribute to the fundamental solution, which is the lack of courier supply compared to its demand. Second, the disclosure system is not feasible in practice since it does not consider the complicated, comprehensive factors of delivery fee arrangement. Third, investigation of the current disclosure system has many errors, and its results are less accessible to consumers. Therefore, the ineffective delivery fee disclosure system must be abolished.

The proponents cite that the delivery fee disclosure system guarantees the consumer’s right to know by providing reliable information and strikes up a price cutting race among companies. Furthermore, they argue that an opportunity should be given to maintain the disclosure system, which is still in the trial-and-error phase. On the other hand, opponents criticized the limitations of the disclosure system which does not resolve the fundamental cause of the increase in delivery fees, and cannot take into account the uniqueness of individual situations. Furthermore, they pointed out the errors in investigation and information delivery system. The delivery market will no doubt continue growing. Administrational measures to monitor the monopoly of platform companies and to stabilize the soaring delivery fees should be promptly made.