Justice Enny Nurbaningsih reading out the Court’s legal considerations during the Decision Pronouncement Hearing on the judicial review of Law No. 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection on Tuesday (12/05). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court (MK) rejects the Petition No. 131/PUU-XXIV/2026 on the material review of Article 15 of Law No. 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection (Consumer Protection Law). The Court stands that giving a limitation to the phrase “other methods that may cause physical or psychological disturbances” on the marketing of goods and/or services through personal communication tools without the consumer’s consent, as mentioned in the petitum, will narrow the meaning.

“According to the Court, with the further opening of free markets, the form of marketing of goods and/or services is expanding, which is caused by the global wave and also the development of information technology, leading to the increase in variation of goods and/or services in the market, including the development of goods and service businesses, in any kind of forms and ways,” Justice Enny Nurbaningsih reading out the legal consideration of Decision No. 131/PUU-XXIV/2026 on Tuesday, May 12, 2026.

Article 15 of the Consumer Protection Law 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.” Meanwhile, what is meant by the phrase ‘other methods in this provision is any act other than coercion that may influence a person to do or not to do something that they would not otherwise do.

Accordingly, the phrase ‘other methods’ in Article 15 of the Consumer Protection Law cannot be read partially, but must be interpreted together with the phrase ‘that may cause physical or psychological disturbance’. Physical disturbance” includes, among other things, acts such as restricting a consumer’s movement, inappropriate touching, or directly endangering the consumer’s bodily safety in order to force them to purchase the goods and/or services being offered.

Psychological disturbance”, meanwhile, may include intrusive conduct that gives rise to fear, anxiety, mental pressure, or profound discomfort, such as shouting, making threats, or repeatedly coming to the consumer’s home or workplace despite the consumer having already refused. Thus, the phrase “other methods that may cause physical or psychological disturbance” in Article 15 of the Consumer Protection Law refers to acts other than coercion carried out by business actors in offering goods and/or services that may cause physical or psychological disturbance to consumers.

“In this regard, both acts of coercion and other means that may cause physical or psychological disturbance committed by business actors in offering goods and/or services to consumers not only violate consumers’ right to make purchasing decisions freely, but also risk damaging the relationship between consumers and business actors,” Justice Enny explained.

Also read:

Violating Legal Information Rights, Students Challenge Consumer Protection Law

Petitioners Change Object of Consumer Protection Law Review

The case was submitted by law students of the Universitas Terbuka: Audy Zahra Rivianto, Annisa Susinta, Fahrezi Adam Mu’mmar, Esri Setianingsih, and Abdul Ramadhan. They argue that the a quo provision creates uncertainty for them in identifying the limits of prohibited conduct and leaves a vacuum of responsibility for business actors, directly threatening their right to protection of life and property. It results in the lack of protection for consumers, preventively and repressively. There is a power imbalance between consumers and businesses.

They requested 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.

Decision No. 131/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Indonesian)

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.

---