South Korean medical device manufacturer Classys has restricted the distribution of its popular skin-tightening and lifting equipment, including the Shurink and Volnewmer systems, to dental clinics and traditional Korean medicine clinics. The decision follows intense backlash from dermatologists and aesthetic medical societies over non-physician aesthetic procedures.
Industry Backlash Triggers Equipment Restrictions
The conflict escalated as traditional Korean medicine practitioners and dentists increasingly adopted energy-based aesthetic devices such as skin lasers and radiofrequency machines, according to industry reports. Seven major aesthetic medical societies formed a coalition to oppose the expansion, threatening collective actions including partnership boycotts and regulatory reports against clinics utilizing the devices outside of traditional medical scopes, as detailed by local news aggregator DogDrip.
In response to the mounting pressure from medical organizations, Classys notified practitioners that it would halt machine sales, consumable distribution, and after-sales service support for dental and Korean medicine clinics.
Regulatory Complaints and Safety Debates
Traditional Korean medicine practitioners have pushed back against the supply restriction, accusing the Korean Medical Association of exerting unfair market pressure through device manufacturers. Affected practitioners filed a formal complaint with the Korea Fair Trade Commission, citing historical precedents of similar market exclusion tactics.
Meanwhile, medical associations defended the restrictions by emphasizing patient safety and the specialized training required to operate high-intensity focused ultrasound and radiofrequency equipment. The Korean Medical Association stated that energy-based aesthetic procedures carry inherent risks of burns and nerve damage when performed outside specialized dermatological training pathways.
Public Sentiment and Market Impact
Public discussion surrounding the turf war highlights growing consumer demand for lower-cost aesthetic procedures and expanded provider access. Online forums and community boards reflected widespread consumer frustration with high dermatology prices, with many commentators arguing for broader delegation of basic skin treatments to nurses or alternative medical providers to drive down procedure costs.
The dispute underscores ongoing tensions within South Korea’s highly competitive aesthetic medical market as practitioners seek new revenue streams amidst shifting regulatory boundaries and strict industry enforcement by dominant medical lobbies.
Related reading