In this blog post, we will examine the background and issues surrounding the implementation of the online gaming shutdown policy, the process leading to its repeal, and the future direction of youth protection policies.

Background and Controversy Surrounding the Online Gaming Shutdown Policy

In 2011, the South Korean government introduced the online gaming shutdown policy to prevent excessive online gaming among minors. Under Article 26 of the Juvenile Protection Act at the time, the system restricted the provision of online games to minors under the age of 16 between midnight and 6:00 a.m. The Ministry of Gender Equality and Family promoted this system to ensure adequate sleep for minors and prevent excessive gaming, citing the link between certain juvenile crimes and video game use as a basis for its introduction.
From the moment it was implemented, the gaming shutdown system sparked significant controversy over whether it constituted excessive regulation or was a necessary measure to prevent gaming addiction. While some argued that restricting late-night gaming would reduce adolescents’ gaming time and prevent addiction, various problems arose during its actual implementation. First, critics pointed out that there was insufficient scientific evidence to support the claim that adolescents’ sleep deprivation or violent behavior was caused by gaming. Furthermore, privacy concerns arose regarding the process by which game companies were required to verify users’ personal information in order to implement the shutdown system. In addition, there was persistent criticism that the policy imposed excessive restrictions on adolescents while proving ineffective. Following these controversies, the mandatory gaming shutdown system was abolished through a legislative amendment in 2021, and the current system is centered on voluntary guidance and choices by parents or guardians.

Is Gaming the Cause of Sleep Deprivation Among Adolescents?

First, let’s examine the background behind the implementation of the gaming shutdown system. The Ministry of Gender Equality and Family promoted the shutdown system on the grounds that adolescents’ right to sleep must be guaranteed. However, this argument requires scrutiny from multiple perspectives, as it is difficult to attribute adolescents’ lack of sleep solely to gaming.
A look at students’ daily schedules reveals that many attend cram schools or participate in evening self-study sessions even after regular school hours end, and it is not uncommon for them to return home after 10:00 p.m. Due to these long study hours, the time when they can begin leisure activities is delayed. Students who choose gaming as a leisure activity naturally end up playing late into the night, which inevitably pushes back their bedtime. In this situation, applying the shutdown system risks students ending their day without having had sufficient leisure time. On the other hand, it is not easy to find alternative leisure activities to replace gaming at such late hours.
Furthermore, sleep deprivation among adolescents is a problem caused by a combination of various factors, such as academic pressure and living conditions. Therefore, to guarantee the right to sleep, an approach that addresses the social environment—which contributes to excessive academic pressure and late returns home—in addition to restricting gaming hours may be more effective.

Is the Claim That Video Games Increase Violence Valid?

Second, let’s examine the relationship between video games and violence. Some online games do contain violent elements, and there have indeed been cases where games were mentioned in connection with certain incidents. However, it is difficult to generalize that all video game users exhibit violent tendencies based solely on these cases.
Among the countless people who enjoy video games, only a tiny fraction actually commit crimes. Judging the entire user base uniformly based on a few isolated cases constitutes a logical fallacy. If video games themselves significantly increased people’s propensity for violence, the crime rate among professional gamers—who play for long hours—would have to be extremely high. However, no such findings have been confirmed.
Furthermore, the claim that video games damage the brain or directly cause violence has not yet been established as a consistent scientific conclusion. In fact, there are various research findings regarding the relationship between video games and aggression, and the view that it is difficult to conclusively state that video games alone cause violence has been consistently put forward. Ultimately, the relationship between video games and aggression can be viewed as a complex issue that requires consideration of multiple factors, including an individual’s environment, personality, and social factors.

Personal Information Protection Issues

In order to implement the shutdown system, it was necessary to identify users under the age of 16, which required game companies to process personal information to verify users’ ages. This process raised concerns regarding the protection of personal information.
In 2011, the importance of personal information protection came sharply into focus following a large-scale personal information leak at a major domestic internet service provider. Since then, the South Korean government has strengthened the system to minimize the collection of unnecessary personal information. However, the shutdown system faced criticism for conflicting with this trend, as it required the processing of additional personal information for age verification.
The more sources from which personal information is collected, the greater the potential for increased management burdens and the risk of data breaches. Therefore, it was argued that even though the goal of protecting minors is important, policy design must maintain a balance with the principles of personal information protection.

Excessive Regulation of Minors

The shutdown system has also been criticized for imposing excessive regulations on minors. At the time, South Korea already operated a game rating system that assigned age-based ratings based on factors such as violence or sexual content. Critics pointed out that imposing blanket restrictions on playtime—even for games deemed suitable for minors after undergoing a specific review process—constituted double regulation.
Furthermore, controversy persisted over whether it was appropriate for the state to uniformly restrict minors’ leisure activities. Gaming is one aspect of minors’ diverse cultural lives, and many argued that autonomous management by families and guardians was preferable to regulating all users in the same manner.

The Shutdown System’s Lack of Effectiveness

Finally, the shutdown system was criticized for lacking sufficient effectiveness. At the time, the system was primarily applied to online games, and in some cases, it did not apply equally to console games or certain mobile games. Consequently, there was a problem in that even if online gaming was restricted, minors could continue playing by using other platforms.
Furthermore, as cases arose where minors used the accounts of parents or other family members, criticism continued that the system’s effectiveness was compromised. In fact, even after the system was implemented, such instances of circumvention were reported, and research findings were published indicating that minors’ gaming hours did not decrease as significantly as expected.
For these reasons, there were persistent assessments that the shutdown system had failed to sufficiently achieve its policy goal of protecting minors, and ultimately, the South Korean government amended the Youth Protection Act in 2021 to abolish the mandatory shutdown system. Currently, the system operates primarily through an optional parental control system that allows guardians to manage their children’s gaming time and through voluntary management measures implemented by game companies.

What Lessons Did the Gaming Shutdown System Leave Behind?

As examined earlier, the gaming shutdown system was implemented with the aim of safeguarding adolescents’ right to sleep and preventing excessive gaming, but various controversies and limitations emerged during its implementation. It is difficult to attribute adolescents’ sleep deprivation solely to gaming, and the relationship between gaming and violence is also difficult to determine simply; furthermore, issues such as privacy protection, excessive regulation, and low effectiveness were continuously raised.
Ultimately, South Korea abolished the mandatory gaming shutdown policy and shifted its policy focus toward voluntary parental supervision and personalized usage guidance. This serves as an example illustrating the need for a balanced approach that considers the goal of protecting adolescents alongside individual freedom, privacy protection, and the effectiveness of the policy.