SUARA NEGERI | JAKARTA — The increasingly rapid development of the digital economy is considered not always in line with the principles of fair business competition. The dominance of a number of large digital platforms has the potential to give rise to structural monopolistic practices that erode economic justice. This situation has prompted the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) to tighten oversight of the digital sector in 2026.
Competition law expert, Dr. H. Sutrisno, S.H., M.Hum., emphasized that legally, the KPPU has a strong basis of authority based on Law Number 5 of 1999 concerning the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition.
"The KPPU is an independent institution established to realize an efficient and equitable national economy. Therefore, oversight of the digital sector is not an option, but a constitutional obligation," said Sutrisno on Wednesday (January 28).
Academically, Sutrisno explained that the digital sector has special characteristics such as network effects, control of big data, and high consumer switching costs. These characteristics allow for market dominance without formal monopoly agreements, yet they have a systemic impact on market structure.
"In modern competition law studies, digital dominance is structural and tends to be exclusive. Its impact is real for small businesses and consumers, although difficult to prove using conventional legal approaches," he explained.
He believes the rule of reason approach currently used in Law Number 5 of 1999 is no longer entirely adequate in the context of the digital economy. This approach requires proof of detrimental impact, which in digital practice is often hampered by technological complexity and information asymmetry.
"From an academic perspective, the per se illegal approach needs to be considered for certain acts in the digital sector. This approach provides legal certainty because an act is immediately classified as unlawful based on its nature," Sutrisno emphasized.
According to him, strengthening this legal approach is also in line with the principles of justice and expediency in law. Legal certainty will prevent the abuse of market power, justice is realized through the protection of small businesses and consumers, while the benefits of the law are reflected in the creation of a healthy and efficient business climate.
From a constitutional perspective, Sutrisno emphasized that the supervision of digital business competition cannot be separated from the mandate of Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution. This article affirms that the economy is structured as a joint effort based on the principle of kinship and aimed at the greatest possible prosperity of the people.
"The control of strategic economic sectors by a handful of digital corporations contradicts the spirit of economic democracy as mandated by Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution. The state must not allow market mechanisms to operate unchecked when social justice is threatened," he said.
From a consumer protection perspective, Sutrisno believes that unfair digital business competition causes consumers to lose the freedom to choose competitive prices and services, especially amidst the still low technological literacy among some segments of society.
He also encouraged the KPPU (Commission for the Commission for the Compensation and Protection of the Indonesian People) to be more proactive in providing policy recommendations to the government, particularly regarding the rise of illegal online loans and online gambling.
According to him, these practices not only violate the principles of fair business competition but also have serious social and legal impacts.
"Online loans and online gambling have led to economic losses, crime, family breakdown, and even termination of employment. From a public law and constitutional perspective, the state is obligated to protect the people," he concluded. (*)
Reporter: Bayu Sasongko
Editor : Jeane Patikawa
