Can an insult to a virtual idol be considered an insult to a real person?

This article is a contribution by Attorney Hye-rin Kim of Choi & Lee Law Firm. If you would like to share quality content for startups in the form of a contribution, please contact the Venture Square editorial team at editor@venturesquare.net.

In recent years, virtual idols and influencers have become familiar terms. Even startup and small business owners have likely pondered at least once, "Could our brand also utilize virtual characters?" or "What if we incorporated AI-based virtual models into our marketing?" Amidst this trend of experimenting with avatar-based business models beyond the content and entertainment industries, even across commerce, education, and platform companies, a noteworthy ruling regarding virtual idols has recently been issued.

The emergence of virtual idols

Virtual idols are idols who perform on stage with virtual characters instead of real people. They are a combination of metaverse technology and the K-pop industry.

One example that sparked the popularity of virtual idols in Korea is "Isekai Idol." These programs utilize VR (virtual reality) technology to create characters, but with actual people performing the dancing and singing. Later, as technology advanced, real-time motion capture became the preferred method, allowing for the instantaneous reflection of human movements and facial expressions onto the characters. A prime example is "Playbe." Playbe's technology allows for live broadcasts and fan meetings without post-processing, with the members' real-time movements reflected in their characters.

Virtual idols can create added value through IP expansion by integrating with various digital industries, such as web novels, games, and video content. Therefore, they present legal issues different from those in the traditional entertainment industry. Playives combine the non-realistic element of an avatar with the real element of an actual performer. The case presented here addresses this very point: whether insults directed at virtual idols can be recognized as insults to the actual person they represent.

Can an insult to a virtual idol be considered an insult to a real person?

This case is a matter in which the plaintiffs, real people who are members of the virtual idol group Playb, filed a lawsuit for damages, claiming that they were insulted by the defendant's SNS postings (Uijeongbu District Court, Goyang Branch, May 14, 2025, Decision 2025 Ga Dan 50721). The defendant posted articles and videos containing insulting expressions about Playb and its members on the SNS platform 'X' through an account he operated.

There are two main issues at stake in this case. First, whether the plaintiffs can be identified as victims of the defendant's postings . The defendant argued that Playb is a fictional character, not a real person, and that the identities of the actual users are confidential, making it impossible to establish a connection between the plaintiffs and the actual users. Therefore, the victims cannot be identified.

The reason "specific" is problematic here is that for a tort based on insult to be established, the victim must be identified. However, this does not necessarily have to be limited to specifying the person's name. If the content of the expression, taken in conjunction with the surrounding circumstances, is sufficient to indicate that the expression is specifically directed at the victim, then the victim is considered identified.

In this case, the court examined both the characteristics and functions of avatars. Avatars are virtual representations used by real-world users to represent themselves in digital spaces. In the metaverse era, where the real and digital worlds converge, avatars serve as a means of self-expression, identity, and social communication. Therefore, the court ruled that insults to avatars can also be considered acts that violate the external reputation of real-world users. Specifically, if the identity of the avatar user is revealed and the avatar is identified with that user by an unspecified number of people, insults to the avatar can be considered insults to the real-world user.

The fact that the plaintiffs are active as idols is known to an unspecified number of people regardless of the management company's policy, and the defendant also posted the text and video while recognizing that the plaintiffs were actual users of Playb, so the court determined that the plaintiffs were identified as victims.

The second issue is whether the defendant's posting constitutes an illegal act of insult . Insult refers to expressing abstract judgments or contemptuous sentiments that, without stating facts, can lower a person's social standing. In particular, when freedom of expression on matters of public interest conflicts with the protection of an individual's private interests, insults and contemptuous personal attacks, or violations of another's personal rights regarding their personal information, are considered beyond the bounds of expression of opinion and are therefore not permissible.

The court ruled that the language used in the postings in this case was intended to disparage the plaintiffs, using vulgar language. The form and content of the postings constituted an insulting and derogatory personal attack, thus constituting an unlawful act of insult. Furthermore, considering the content, the level of the expressions, and the subsequent circumstances, the court determined the amount of damages to be 100,000 won for each person.

This ruling is significant in that it establishes that insults to avatars can be considered insults to the actual person behind them, and it provides specific criteria for determining this. Beyond formal distinctions, the court considered specific circumstances, such as whether the identity of the avatar user was publicly revealed and whether an unspecified number of people identified the avatar with the user, to determine whether the victim was identified.

As virtual idols and influencers, which act as substitutes for humans, become increasingly utilized in various industries, the likelihood of similar disputes arising in various fields in the future is increasing. This ruling is expected to serve as a benchmark for addressing rights infringements in the metaverse environment.

• See more related columns