The Petitioners attend the hearing for the revision of Petition Number 123/PUU-XXIV/2026 on the judicial review of Law Number 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection, Wednesday (04/22/2026) at the Constitutional Court courtroom. Photo by MKRI/Bay.
JAKARTA, (MKRI) – Five law students, acting as Petitioners in Petition Number 123/PUU-XXIV/2026, submitted revisions to their judicial review of Law Number 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection to the Constitutional Court. They expanded the object of their petition from specific provisions to the entirety of Article 8 of the Consumer Protection Law, arguing that it creates absolute legal uncertainty for digital consumers by focusing solely on conventional business actors, while in cyberspace, consumer losses often arise from the lack of data validation by intermediary platforms.
“There has been a complete revision of the petition’s reasoning from pages 12 to 21, and the entire posita is considered read,” said Farah Zhafira Azzahra, one of the Petitioners, during the revision hearing on Wednesday (04/22/2026) at the Court.
The Petitioners argued that Article 8 of Law 8/1999 overlooks the phenomenon of marketplaces that are capable of altering product descriptions post-transaction, resulting in the loss of evidentiary certainty for consumers seeking to prove violations of Article 8 paragraph (1) letter f. According to them, the current formulation of Article 8 creates a “legal vacuum” in cyber transactions, where platforms can claim to be mere intermediaries to avoid sanctions under Article 62 of the Law.
The right to legal certainty includes the right to receive goods as promised in advertisements (Article 8 paragraph (1) letter f). However, this norm fails without accompanying obligations for platforms to implement automatic takedowns and immediate compensation. The static nature of Article 8 obstructs consumers from obtaining proportionate justice, as consumer losses are often mass in nature while remedies remain individualized and weak in bargaining position.
From a constitutional perspective, the state fails to provide adequate protection if it allows consumer protection law to remain unresponsive to digital fraud schemes that operate under the guise of technological advancement. Article 8 paragraph (4), which regulates the withdrawal of goods from circulation, becomes ineffective in the digital ecosystem when technical ministries lack the authority to compel platforms to systematically block non-compliant products.
Legal certainty is undermined when consumers receive “empty packages” or incorrect goods, yet platforms consider transactions complete based solely on courier notifications, without verifying the substance of goods in accordance with Article 8. The Petitioners argued that Article 8 creates legal vulnerability for students and citizens who rely on the digital economy due to the absence of regulations concerning “algorithm audits” to verify product information.
They further stated that Article 8 is not aligned with developments in international e-commerce law, which increasingly emphasizes strict liability for electronic system operators, thereby weakening national legal competitiveness. Consumers are forced to undertake burdensome independent proof, particularly for chemical or herbal products that do not meet standards (Article 8 paragraph (3)), without platform support for laboratory verification.
The absence of provisions on “consumer protection insurance” within Article 8 also reflects weak legal protection in the era of digital disruption. Overall, the Petitioners argued that Article 8 of Law 8/1999 is inconsistent with Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, insofar as it does not include obligations for digital platforms to validate, supervise, and ensure compliance of goods with applicable legal standards.
Read also:
Petitioners Challenge Absence of Mandatory SNI Reference for Consistent Consumer Protection
In their petition, the Petitioners requested the Court to declare Article 8 of Law 8/1999 conditionally unconstitutional and lacking binding legal force unless interpreted to impose obligations and prohibitions equally upon digital marketplace platforms as facilitators of transactions. Such platforms, they argued, must bear joint liability for discrepancies in goods, invalid product information, and must ensure the availability of business actor identities and transaction data to facilitate consumer redress.
They also requested the Court to declare the elucidation of Article 8 paragraphs (2) and (3) conditionally unconstitutional unless interpreted to require that the safety of goods be verified through independent verification and curation systems by digital platform operators prior to public distribution.
The petition was examined by a Panel of Constitutional Justices chaired by Chief Justice Suhartoyo, accompanied by Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah. (*)
Author : Mimi Kartika
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Raisa Ayuditha M.
Translator : Agusweka PS.
Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version prevails.
Case Track: Number 123/PUU-XXIV/2026
Wednesday, April 22, 2026 | 16:28 WIB 271