Jakarta (ANTARA) - Former Chairman of the Business Competition\nSupervisory Commission (KPPU), Kurnia Toha, has highlighted the KPPU\u2019s\ndecision against 97 online lending businesses, which were fined a total\nof Rp755 billion.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere are several considerations by the commission panel and the\nhandling of the trial that I believe were not entirely appropriate,\u201d\nsaid Kurnia Toha in Jakarta on Friday.<\/p>\n
He stated that one key issue is the KPPU\u2019s reference to Article 101\nof the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which\nprohibits anti-competitive agreements.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe KPPU did not refer to that article in its entirety,\u201d he\nsaid.<\/p>\n
He explained that Article 101 of the TFEU does address prohibitions\non cartels, price fixing, and restrictions on competition.<\/p>\n
The commission panel deemed the code of conduct of the Indonesian\nJoint Funding Fintech Association (AFPI) to constitute price fixing.<\/p>\n
Based on this analysis, the KPPU concluded that the 97 respondents\nviolated Article 5 of Law No.\u00a05 of 1999 regarding price fixing.<\/p>\n
He clarified that Article 101 of the TFEU also exempts violations if\nthey benefit consumers and if competition among businesses remains\nviable.<\/p>\n
In this Indonesian case, consumers are undoubtedly benefited as loan\ninterest rates have become lower.<\/p>\n
\u201cMoreover, businesses are still competing, evidenced by their\ncontinued advertising across various media to expand their customer\nbase,\u201d said the lecturer from the Faculty of Law at the University of\nIndonesia.<\/p>\n
In his view, if competition persists and consumers benefit, the\nbusinesses involved as respondents in this case should be acquitted.<\/p>\n
He believes such aspects were overlooked in the examination and by\nthe commission panel in the case registered as 05\/KPPU-I\/2025.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf it benefits consumers, it aligns with Article 50 of Law No.\u00a05 of\n1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business\nCompetition,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
He explained that this article classifies actions benefiting\nconsumers as improvements in societal living standards.<\/p>\n
He assessed that the AFPI\u2019s provisions on loan interest rate caps,\nprompted by the Financial Services Authority (OJK), are essentially just\nbehavioural rules or a code of conduct.<\/p>\n
The KPPU failed to prove that after the code was adopted, there was\nany agreement or coordination among businesses regarding online loan\ninterest rates.<\/p>\n
\u201cAfter the code of conduct\u2014which the panel viewed as a price\nagreement\u2014was established, it should also be proven whether there were\nrules imposing penalties for non-compliance and rewards for adherence,\u201d\nhe said.<\/p>\n
He added that the KPPU panel also disregarded testimony from a former\nOJK official who instructed industry players to lower loan interest\nrates to avoid burdening consumers.<\/p>\n
He noted that although the directive was verbal, it should still be\nregarded as the regulator\u2019s intent from a state institution, which\nbusinesses as industry operators must follow.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis was not considered by the panel. However, going forward, it\nwould be advisable for businesses to request written directives from the\nregulator,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
As is known, the KPPU penalised 97 peer-to-peer lending platforms\ndeemed to have violated Article 5 of Law No.\u00a05 of 1999.<\/p>\n
The KPPU Commission Members have decided that the 97 online lending\ncompanies must pay a total fine of Rp755 billion.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/former-kppu-chairman-criticises-decision-on-online-loan-case-1777665044", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }