Petitioners of Consumer Protection Law delivering revised petition on Thursday (30/4). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – Students from Universitas Terbuka delivered a revised petition on the material review of Law No. 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection (Consumer Protection Law) to the Constitutional Court on Thursday, April 30, 2026. Petitioners removed Article 27 letters b and c from the petition; therefore, they only challenge Article 15 of the Consumer Protection Law.

“The constitutional issue is focused on the uncertainty of the phrase ‘other methods’ in Article 15,” Petitioner I, Audy Zahra Rivianto, stated during the petition revision hearing of Case No. 131/PUU-XXIV/2026 at the Courtroom, Jakarta.

Petitioners also changed the touchstone, or the articles, of the 1945 Constitution, which served as the basis for testing in this case. They use Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 28G paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution on the right to legal certainty and the rights to security and self-protection as the basis for review.

Petitioners also added several constitutional harms they experienced as the receiver of spam electronic messages, unknown calls, and aggressive digital marketing. These disturbances occur repeatedly, are intrusive, and exceed the normal limits of business communication. These harms occurred due to the phrase “other methods” in Article 15 of the Consumer Protection Law, which lacks clear boundaries, creating uncertainty about whether the actions constitute violations in the absence of strict legal parameters.

Petitioners also revised the petitum. They request the Court to declare the phrase “other methods” in Article 15 of the Consumer Protection Law contradicts the 1945 Constitution and has no legally binding force, conditionally as long as it is not interpreted as the marketing of goods and/or services conducted through private communication without the consent of consumers.

The petition was filed by Audy Zahra Rivianto, Annisa Susinta, Fahrezi Adam Mu’mmar, Esri Setianingsih, and Abdul Ramadhan. They believe that the norm creates uncertainty about the limits of prohibited acts and creates a liability vacuum for business actors, directly threatening the rights of Petitioners to the protection of life and property. As a result, consumers are not protected preventively and repressively. There is also a power imbalance between consumers and businesses.

Petitioners challenge Article 15, which reads, “Business actors in offering goods and/or services are prohibited from doing so by means of coercion or other methods that may cause physical or psychological disturbances to consumers.” They argue that their sense of security is violated when marketing is conducted aggressively, given the uncertainty of Article 15. (*)

Case tracking: Petition No. 131/PUU-XXIV/2026

Author: Mimi Kartika
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Raisa Ayuditha M.

Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario

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 will prevail.

---