JAKARTA - The peer-to-peer (P2P) lending or online lending (pindar) financial technology (fintech) industry was shaken by the decision of the Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) which imposed a total fine of IDR 755 billion on 97 Pindar companies.
This decision is based on the alleged violation of Article 5 of Law No. 5 of 1999 regarding pricing practices (cartels), especially in the form of maximum interest rates on loans. However, the decision has sparked widespread controversy.
Deputy Chairman of Commission VI of the Indonesian House of Representatives, Adisatrya Suryo Sulisto, assessed that the dynamics that occur in the pindar industry are quite common in Indonesia because of the regulatory vacuum when a new industry emerges.
Therefore, he sees the need for strengthening from the legislative aspect so that the competition supervision system can be more optimal without sacrificing economic inefficiency.
As is known, currently Commission VI of the DPR RI is drafting a revision to Law No. 5 of 1999 concerning Prohibition of Monopoly Practices and Unhealthy Business Competition.
"Often in our economy, things like this often happen because of regulatory gaps. What we want to achieve from the first revision of the KPPU Law is a more qualified economy by increasing healthy competition. Unhealthy competition leads to economic inefficiency. Second, provide a level playing field, don't benefit the big ones only," said Adisatrya.
Not only from the side of the law, Adisatrya assessed institutionally, the KPPU still faces a number of challenges.
Starting from the limitations of human resources (HR), the lack of budget support, to the unclear career levels of employees.
According to him, these various limitations have the potential to hinder the effectiveness of competition supervision, especially in the midst of the ever-evolving complexity of economic dynamics.
"The KPPU institution itself still has many weaknesses and shortcomings. We want the KPPU to also be a strong institution, but don't interpret it to complicate the business world," he said.
On the other hand, the Executive Director of the Institute for Competition and Business Policy of the Faculty of Law, University of Indonesia (LKPU FH UI) Ditha Wiradiputra assessed that the KPPU's decision was not fully supported by strong evidence, especially in explaining the relationship between industrial policy and cartel practices.
He highlighted the use of a code of conduct or code of conduct that was actually drafted by AFPI to set a maximum interest rate limit in accordance with OJK's instructions.
"So it's interesting when the code of conduct or regulation regarding the upper limit of interest rates is the source of the problem. Because what? Because usually, the rules are made to protect consumers," explained Ditha.
Ditha also criticized the use of concepts such as focal point and facilitating practice in the KPPU's decision which was considered not supported by sufficient empirical evidence.
"The concept of facilitating practice and focal point is not supported by adequate evidence because in the literature on competition law the concept has never stood alone as an offense, but only serves as an additional indicator that must be supported by evidence of market behavior," said Ditha.
Thus, according to him, the conclusion regarding the existence of business competition violations still leaves room for interpretation, especially in distinguishing restrictive policies that are protective from exploitative cartel practices.
"In my opinion, in the decision it is still not enough to prove that there has been a violation committed by this company (pindar)," said Ditha.
Meanwhile, the Director of the Digital Economy Center of Economic and Law Studies (Celios),
Nailul Huda reminded that the prohibition of flower arrangement by associations has the potential to cause undesirable consequences, especially for financial inclusion.
"That when there is a decision and asked not to regulate interest, it will actually narrow the existing financial inclusion space in Indonesia, especially in rural areas," he said.
He emphasized that competition policy needs to take into account the characteristics of the digital economy that are different from the conventional sector, so as not to disrupt the balance between the interests of lenders and borrowers.
"Because based on the data we have processed, it turns out that the benefits of pindar are quite significant and also increase in terms of financial cushion and also the financial ecosystem in rural areas," he said.
On this occasion, Entjik emphasized that the maximum limit of economic benefits that was the focus of the KPPU was actually part of an effort to protect consumers as well as to distinguish legal loans from illegal practices.
"We always convey to the KPPU that there is no evil intention (interest cartel). Our goal is to protect consumers and distinguish between licensed and legal pindar. Interest determination is also in accordance with the direction of the Financial Services Authority (OJK)," he said.
The General Chair of the Indonesian Joint Funding Fintech Association (AFPI) Entjik S Djafar assessed that there were many irregularities in the decision.
One of them is that the KPPU ignored SEOJK Number 19 of 2025 which regulates the limit of economic benefits as an important consideration.
Do not be surprised if this KPPU decision can cause investor concerns about the consistency of regulations in the country.
"This decision could damage the industry, encouraging investors to leave. It is reported that investors want to shift their investments to other countries such as the Philippines, Pakistan, and Vietnam. This is triggered by the perception of weak legal certainty in Indonesia," he explained.
The pindar perpetrators also collectively took an appeal step. Considering that the substance of the KPPU's decision was not considered to reflect the actual industry conditions.
"There are too many strange things in this decision. Therefore, my friends agreed to appeal," he said.
Furthermore, Chairman of Infobank Media Group Eko B. Supriyanto, assessed that the law (UU) related to the KPPU needs to be amended.
Because, according to him, the KPPU as a commission should not demand, convict, and collect fines at the same time.
"The KPPU law must be amended. It is not allowed to demand, then convict, then collect the fine, it is not good in one hand, what is the commission, yes, yes, the court is different," said Eko.
Eko criticized the KPPU's decision which showed inconsistency by assessing the interest limit of P2P lending fintech as an OJK directive as a cartel practice.
"The KPPU shows inconsistency by assessing the P2P interest rate limit as a regulation from the OJK as a cartel practice. This is not a cartel. Meanwhile, the determination of the interest rate limit in the banking sector by LPS is not disputed, creating legal dualism," he said.
The English, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, and French versions are automatically generated by the AI. So there may still be inaccuracies in translating, please always see Indonesian as our main language. (system supported by DigitalSiber.id)
