Rio Priambodo from Indonesian Consumers Foundation, as a Relevant Party, after providing testimony at judicial review hearing of Consumer Protection Law and Health Law, Monday (6/8/2026). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
JAKARTA (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court (MK) held another hearing for judicial review of Law No. 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection on Monday, June 8, 2026. The fifth hearing for 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 relevant parties from National Consumer Protection Agency (BPKN), Indonesian Consumers Foundation (YLKI), and Indonesian E-Commerce Association (idEA).
Fitrah Bukhari from National Consumer Protection Agency (BPKN) explained that based on consumer complaint data collected by the agency, the Electronic Commerce (PMSE) sector consistently ranks second in terms of the number of complaints. In the past three years, BPKN has received 519 consumer complaints in the PMSE sector, with potential consumer losses reaching 22.6 billion Rupiah.
Fitrah further explained that consumer complaints in the PMSE sector vary, including refunds, returns, unilateral transaction cancellations, items not matching advertisements or descriptions, fake accounts, and counterfeit or defective goods. This fact, Fitrah continued, reflects that cross-jurisdictional digital economic activity has become an integral part of the economic lives of millions of Indonesian citizens as end consumers. It also demonstrates the risk of consumer loss in the digital ecosystem, not a sporadic issue but rather a systemic and widespread one.
Fitrah explained that within the taxation and trade regulation regime, the state has established a constitutive principle that foreign digital businesses benefiting from the Indonesian market are considered to be part of legally relevant economic activities. Paradoxically, however, the same principle has not been operationalized within the consumer protection regime.
BPKN views this situation as creating an imbalance in treatment. The state benefits from the activities of transnational digital businesses, but leaves consumers at risk of economic losses without an effective redress mechanism. This imbalance violates the principle of benefit, one of the foundations of the Consumer Protection Law, as the domestic digital ecosystem becomes exploitative, benefiting foreign businesses and the state treasury, but failing to provide adequate protection for the well-being of the consumers who are the source of those benefits.
"Indonesia is capable of being an active subject of international consumer protection, but it lacks adequate regulatory instruments to protect its own consumers from foreign digital businesses. When businesses are outside its reach, existing norms have proven to have limited jurisdictional reach and do not provide BPKN with operational coercive powers," Fitrah explained in a plenary session chaired by Chief Justice Suhartoyo from the Plenary Courtroom, Building 1 of the Constitutional Court.
Failing to Address the Challenges of Digital Transactions
Indonesian Consumers Foundation (YLKI), through Rio Priambodo, explained that the Consumer Protection Law is 27 years old, making it insufficient to address the challenges of digital transactions. A comprehensive revision cannot be delayed. Therefore, YLKI hopes Court will provide norms and interpretations to strengthen consumer protection. YLKI's complaint data demonstrates that digital consumer losses occur daily, not a theoretical concern.
"YLKI's complaint data demonstrates that digital consumer losses occur daily, not a theoretical concern. Therefore, the state must be present, and there must be no gaps in responsibility that prevent consumers from losing access to justice," Rio explained.
Adaptive Norms
Meanwhile, Hilmi Adrianto from Indonesian E-Commerce Association (idEA) explained that the Consumer Protection Law needs to act as an adaptive umbrella regulation to adapt to the dynamics of digital technology without requiring frequent changes. Furthermore, the Consumer Protection Law should also recognize and encourage technology-based consumer protection mechanisms, such as automated complaint handling, rating systems, and dispute resolution tools already implemented by the industry.
"The Consumer Protection Law needs to establish a nationally standardized mechanism/guidelines for online dispute resolution. There also needs to be a focus on digital literacy, consumer protection campaigns, and risk-based supervision, rather than adding new permits for businesses. There needs to be harmonization of cross-sectoral regulations to ensure legal certainty for businesses," Hilmi explained.
Also read:
Petitioners Challenge Consumer_Protection Law over Google Play Refund Dispute
Revised Petition on Consumer Protection Law over Google Play's Rejected Refunds
In Preliminary Examination Hearing held on Monday, March 2, 2026, Petitioners stated 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, there was an automatic deduction of funds 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 does not 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.
Monday, June 08, 2026 | 15:59 WIB 2