Commission III member, Martin Daniel Tumbelaka, representing the House of Representatives (DPR), in the Consumer Protection Law hearing, delivering his statement online, on Tuesday (5/12/2026). Photo by MKRI/Panji.
JAKARTA (MKRI) – Regarding the function of the National Consumer Protection Agency (BPKN), Article 34 paragraph 1 letter d letter f of the Consumer Protection Law stipulates that BPKN is not an adjudicative institution that resolves disputes. Rather, it is an agency with the function and duty of providing advice, considerations, receiving complaints, and strengthening consumer protection policies within the institutional framework stipulated by law.
This was the statement of the Indonesian House of Representatives delivered by Commission III Member Martin Daniel Tumbeleka in another hearing of the material review of Law No. 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection (Consumer Protection Law) on Tuesday, May 12, 2026. The fourth hearing of Petition No. 86/PUU-XXIV/2026 filed by Bernita Matondang (Petitioner I), Gabby Mayang Sari (Petitioner II), and Evelyn Amanda (Petitioner III) was scheduled to hear statements from the Indonesian House of Representatives and the President/Government.
"Meanwhile, matters related to the handling and resolution of complaints and disputes fall under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Dispute Resolution Agency (BPSK). The division of duties and authority between these two bodies will increase the effectiveness of consumer protection, as each body can focus on its primary function, in accordance with statutory provisions. This is as the Court has considered in Decision No. 235/PUU-XXIII/2025," Martin explained.
Automated Services
In the context of electronic contracts, including automated services, the practice of automatically extending services is essentially part of the parties' initial agreement, as outlined in the terms and conditions of service. Therefore, legal relationships remain based on the principle of consensualism, which recognizes agreement as the basis for the creation of a contract.
It is more clearly stated that the provisions of Article 18 paragraph (1) letters c and g of the Consumer Protection Law are norms prohibiting the inclusion of excessive standard clauses, which in consumer protection legal doctrine are known as efforts to limit effervescence in standard contracts. This is to prevent an imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties. This prohibition reflects the principle of good faith and honest transactions. In contract law, it is stipulated that business actors must not set provisions that are unilaterally detrimental to consumers.
Cross-Jurisdictional Transactions
Regarding cross-jurisdictional transactions, the legal relationship between consumers and businesses involves aspects of choice of law and mechanisms for recognizing and enforcing judgments, which are part of the international civil law regime.
"The limitations in reaching business actors outside of Indonesia's jurisdiction relate to the jurisdictional aspects and effectiveness of cross-border law enforcement, which in practice requires the support of other instruments outside the provisions of Law No. 8 of 1999, such as international cooperation and cross-border enforcement mechanisms," explained Martin.
Summoning Business Actors
Meanwhile, the Government, in a statement delivered by Moga Simatupang, Director General of Consumer Protection and Trade Order, stated that regarding the handling of consumer complaints for cross-jurisdictional electronic transactions by the BPSK, the Government stated that based on the provisions of Article 45 paragraph (1) of the Consumer Protection Act and Article 72 paragraph (3) of the Government Regulation on Trade Through Electronic Systems, consumers can sue business actors through the BPSK.
In carrying out its duties and authority to handle consumer settlements, BPSK has the authority to summon business actors suspected of committing violations and request assistance from investigators to bring business actors who are unwilling to comply with BPSK summons. As for trade through electronic systems, foreign business actors who actively conduct trade through electronic systems to consumers domiciled in the territory of the Republic of Indonesia, are required to appoint a representative domiciled in the jurisdiction of the Republic of Indonesia who can act as and on behalf of the business actor as regulated in Article 7 of the PMSE PP.
"Thus, there are actually no cross-juridical barriers between foreign business actors and consumers in Indonesia, because foreign business actors are required to appoint representatives domiciled in the territory of the Republic of Indonesia, who can then be summoned by the BPSK when a consumer protection dispute arises," explained Moga Simatupang.
Also read:
Petitioners Challenge Consumer_Protection Law over Google Play Refund Dispute
Revised Petition on Consumer Protection Law over Google Play's Rejected Refunds
Previously, Petitioner argued that the legal provisions governing the scope of consumer protection, the applicability of standard clauses, access to dispute resolution mechanisms, and the clarity of consumer protection institutions in cross-border digital transaction practices were deemed unable to provide effective legal protection. As an illustration, it was stated that Petitioner I is an active consumer of digital services through the Google Play platform who regularly purchases applications and electronic subscription-based services, thus clearly being included as a legal subject protected by the Consumer Protection Law. In using these services, Petitioner I experienced the activation of digital subscription services that took place without Petitioner I's conscious will. As a result, funds were automatically deducted from Petitioner I's payment method, resulting in real economic losses in the form of a reduction in Petitioner I's personal property rights.
Therefore, Petitioner I submitted a refund request to the service provider through the Google Play electronic system mechanism. However, the refund request was rejected by the business actor. In Petitioner I's view, this factually shows the validity of a one-sided standard clause in an electronic contract that places consumers in an unbalanced position and opens up the possibility of refusing to refund consumer payments as related to the provisions of Article 18 paragraph (1) letters c and g of the Consumer Protection Law.
Petitioner I then filed a complaint with the Consumer Dispute Resolution Agency (BPSK) on February 12, 2026, which was then responded to on February 13, 2026 and February 18, 2026. However, BPSK stated that it was not authorized to handle the dispute in question because the business actor was outside the jurisdiction of Indonesia. The refusal of authority by BPSK shows that the phrase "business actor" in Article 45 paragraph (1) of the Consumer Protection Law doesn’t cover cross-border digital business actors.
As a result, the right to sue which is normatively granted by law has turned into a right that cannot be implemented in practice, which directly closes access to justice for Petitioner I. Thus, the loss experienced by Petitioner I is not an ordinary contractual loss between consumers and business actors, but rather a constitutional loss that arises directly due to the implementation of the norms of the Consumer Protection Law which have not provided an effective legal protection mechanism for cross-border electronic transactions.
It was stated that the development of cross-border digital economic transactions has given rise to increasingly complex legal relations, including the potential for a reduction in the economic value of citizens through electronic system mechanisms that occur quickly and without direct interaction. In such conditions, Bernita continued, protection of private property rights no longer depends solely on the contractual relationship between the parties, but on the existence of state legal norms that are able to guarantee effective mechanisms for the protection and restoration of rights. Therefore, the state has a constitutional obligation to ensure that any reduction in the economic value of citizens in digital transactions is accompanied by a guarantee of real legal protection as mandated by Article 28H paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. (*)
Track case No. 86/PUU-XXIV/2026
Author : Sri Pujianti
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Tiara Agustina
Translator : Donny Yuniarto
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.
Tuesday, May 12, 2026 | 14:00 WIB 53