#TRUST & SAFETY · Platform Operations Report — Vol. 07
From Pre-Approval to End-to-End AI Monitoring.
We’re sharing the results of this week’s measures to ensure platform trust.
Publication Date
June 8, 2026
Operational Period
May 31 — June 6
Publication Frequency
Every Monday
01 · This Week’s AI Monitoring Operations Status
🔍 Monitoring Project
185cases
✓ Average Processing Time
1day
Here are some representative examples of actions taken this week based on our operational policies.
CASE 01: Example of an advertisement failing to disclose the use of an AI-generated virtual character
Beauty / Labeling Act · Fair Trade Commission Guidelines / Revised
01 · Detection
AI Monitoring
We detected scenes in project story images where characters—apparently generated by AI—were using or recommending products, and identified materials that lacked any indication that these characters were virtual.
02 · Review
Operator Review · Data Supplementation
Based on the Korea Fair Trade Commission’s Guidelines for Reviewing Recommendations and Endorsements (effective June 1, 2026), we reviewed whether the content constituted a recommendation or endorsement by a virtual character and whether it met the disclosure requirements for each media type (text, photos, and video).
03 · Action
Request to Revise Story
For content lacking virtual character disclosure, provide guidance on the disclosure method for each media type and request corrections to the Story and images.
CASE 01 Detailed Case
Case of Failure to Disclose AI-Generated Virtual Characters
This case involves an advertisement in which an AI-generated virtual character recommends or endorses a product without any disclosure that the character is virtual. Since this could be mistaken for the actual experience of a real person, it may violate the “Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising.” (Fair Trade Commission Guidelines for Review of Recommendations and Endorsements, effective June 1, 2026)
02 · This Week’s Report Status
No notable reports were received this week.
Although no major issues were reported by consumers, wadiz proactively inspected and addressed Rewards quality issues that arose during the shipping and receipt stages without waiting for reports. In this issue, we’ll focus on sharing those specific cases.
03 · This Week’s Key Issue — Case Study: Proactive Action on Rewards Defects
These are examples of Rewards quality issues that wadiz identified through monitoring and addressed proactively.
| Rewards |
Identified Issues |
Action |
| CoolJet Fan |
Weak airflow · High noise level → Performance discrepancy between specifications and the sample |
All units to be reshipped |
| Cooling Duvet |
Printing peels off during washing → Product defect confirmed |
All items will be reshipped |
| Stand Fan |
Button noise · Poor finish / Excessive exchange and return fees |
Adjustment of return shipping fees |
CASE 01 Cool Jet Fan
Action Taken / Reshipped the Entire Lot
Issue Details
We have received feedback from supporters stating that the fan’s airflow is weak and it is noisy during operation.
Findings
We confirmed differences in performance specifications—such as airflow and noise levels—between the sample Rewards and the actual Rewards received by customers.
Action Plan
We plan to reship the entire batch with remanufactured products without recalling the Rewards.
CASE 02 Cooling Duvet
Action Taken / Reshipment of the Entire Lot
Issue Details
We confirmed that the printing peels off when the cooling blanket is washed.
Investigation Results
An inspection of the production process confirmed that this was a product defect related to the durability of the print.
Action Plan
We plan to reship the entire order with improved products without recalling the Rewards.
CASE 03 Stand Fan
Action Taken / Conditions Improved
Issue Details
Although there were no product defects, we received comments that the overall finish quality fell short of expectations and that the buttons were noisy when pressed.
Findings
While the products are not defective, we have confirmed that the fees for exchanges and returns were set too high. (30,000 won for opened items / 15,000 won for unopened items)
Action Taken
We determined that the burden on supporters was excessive, so we requested cooperation from the maker and adjusted the return shipping fee down to 10,000 won.
Operational Protection Strategy
Wadiz proactively inspects reward quality during the shipping and receipt stages, even before any reports are filed. We will continue to strengthen the environment so that supporters can participate in funding with peace of mind by reshipping all defective products and, in cases where conditions place an excessive burden on supporters—even if not technically defective—adjusting them to a reasonable level in cooperation with makers.
04 · This Week’s Operational Summary
This week saw no unusual reports; instead, we proactively addressed Rewards quality issues identified through AI monitoring and internal inspections.
1
Status of AI Monitoring Measures
We monitored 185 projects, of which 22 resulted in requests for corrections from the makers and 1 resulted in the project being hidden from view.
2
Status of Proactive Measures
There were no notable reports this week; however, we proactively addressed three Rewards quality issues identified through our internal review. The main issues involved defective products and improvements to shipping and return conditions.
3
Notice Regarding the Next Report
The next Transparency Report is scheduled to be published on June 15, 2026. wadiz will continue to disclose its operational status and key action cases to strengthen trust in the platform.
View Previous Reports
wadiz Transparency Report Vol. 06
Go to →