South Korea opens fuel price case against SK Energy and HD Hyundai Oilbank

South Korea’s Fair Trade Commission opened deliberations on October 7, 2026, over allegations that SK Energy and HD Hyundai Oilbank exchanged fuel pricing information for years and agreed on prices twice in March. The case concerns gasoline, diesel and kerosene sold in a concentrated domestic market. Investigators have recommended corrective measures and fines, but the commission has made no final finding or penalty decision.

The FTC secretariat sent an examiner’s report to the commission and both refiners on October 7. It sets out investigators’ account of the conduct and their proposed measures. The FTC said the report does not bind the commissioners who will decide the case after the companies have an opportunity to present their defenses.

What the FTC alleges about fuel prices

According to the FTC, investigators believe the two companies exchanged information about prices and sales policies for gasoline, diesel and kerosene from February 2022 until about March 2026. The information covered provisional prices used when refiners supplied products to buyers, prices settled later, and sales terms. The allegation spans roughly four years, but the regulator has drawn a distinction between sharing information and agreeing on particular prices.

At its October 7 briefing, the FTC said investigators had identified two specific price agreements in early March 2026. It said they had not confirmed specific price-setting agreements for the preceding period of information exchange. That distinction matters when interpreting the scale of the case: the full period of sales under examination cannot be treated as sales arising from the two alleged agreements alone.

The examiners have recommended corrective measures and fines under provisions covering price fixing and exchanges of information. The commission must still determine whether either alleged violation occurred and, if so, what measures to impose. The FTC has not established a change in consumer prices attributable to the alleged conduct, so the sales estimate does not show how much any motorist paid because of it.

Why the two refiners’ market share matters

The FTC described South Korea’s gasoline, diesel and kerosene market as highly concentrated. Four refiners accounted for about 98% of it last year, according to the agency. SK Energy held 28.1% and HD Hyundai Oilbank 21%, giving the two companies a combined share of about 49%. FTC cartel investigation bureau director Oh Hang-lok said that share was large enough for their conduct to affect competition.

The products are used throughout household life and economic activity, the FTC said. Refiners supply them directly or through gas stations and wholesalers. A provisional supply price is applied when fuel is delivered, while a final price is established later and the difference is settled afterward. The alleged exchange of those prices and sales terms therefore concerns how refiners dealt with buyers in the supply chain; the agency has not quantified a resulting effect at the pump.

Oh said the FTC believed volatility in energy prices during wars may have prompted the information exchanges. That is the regulator’s explanation of the suspected setting for the conduct, not a finding that the companies’ prices rose by a particular amount. The commission’s decision will depend on its assessment of the evidence and the responses submitted during deliberations.

How the companies have responded

Both refiners have said they will present their positions in the FTC proceedings, according to Seoul Economic Daily. HD Hyundai Oilbank denied collusion and disputed the alleged specific price agreements. It told the newspaper that the conclusion about those agreements relied solely on one-sided statements from a rival company. Those objections have yet to be considered in the commission’s final decision.

The companies have eight weeks from receiving the examiner’s report to submit written responses. They may also seek access to and copies of evidence. The FTC says it plans to convene the full commission after those procedural steps. It has given no final ruling in the administrative case, and the amount of any eventual fine remains undecided.

The FTC said it found no evidence of a violation by GS Caltex or S-OIL in this administrative investigation and did not include them in the examiner’s report. Seoul Economic Daily has reported a separate prosecution case involving four refiners. The FTC said the agencies investigated independently and may have different evidence and standards; the administrative allegations against two companies should be understood within their own proceedings.