BPKN Urges MK to Regulate Quota Accumulation or Refund Mechanisms to Prevent Expired Internet Quotas
The Constitutional Court (MK) heard testimony from the Indonesian Consumers Foundation (YLKI) and the National Consumer Protection Agency (BPKN) as parties in the case concerning expired internet quotas. BPKN and YLKI urged the MK to regulate a mechanism to prevent consumer rights from being eroded.
Quoted from the MK’s official website, Friday 22 May 2026, the statements by BPKN and YLKI were made in relation to two cases, numbers 273/PUU-XXIII/2025 and 33/PUU-XXIV/2026.
In its remarks, YLKI’s Executive Board member Rio Priambodo said the internet has become a basic need for people to work, study, and access public services.
YLKI said the issue of expired quotas claimed by applicants is not merely a business technical issue. He said it concerns the fundamental principles of digital consumer protection.
“Consumers must receive their rights as they have paid for, they must not be reduced unilaterally,” Rio said.
He noted that the telecommunications sector was among the top ten most complainant sectors, with 106 cases in 2025. YLKI presented various real cases where consumers lost tens of gigabytes of quota due to confusing rules on how packages are used or automatic deletion when recharging on the same day without clear notification.
Moreover, YLKI emphasised the importance of transparency of quota usage history. Telecommunications operators are deemed obliged to provide usage records for at least the last year so that consumers can evaluate themselves.
“Digital transformation must not be oriented solely towards industry growth but must respect the rights of consumers as legitimate and sovereign users of services,” said Rio.
BPKN member Heru Sutadi then highlighted the weak bargaining position of consumers in their legal relationship with telecom operators. He assessed that the practice of quota expiry has thus far been based on standard form clauses unilaterally determined by business players, potentially violating Article 18 of the Consumer Protection Act.
“Therefore, the state must ensure that telecommunications regulation does not place society merely as a commercial object, but as legal subjects whose rights must be protected,” said Heru.
BPKN argued that the practice touches on three constitutional rights guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution: the right to develop oneself through access to technology (Article 28C(1)); the right to fair legal certainty regarding the validity period and remaining quota (Article 28D(1)); and the right to protection of consumer economic value (Article 28H(4)). He said removing the benefits of a service that has already been paid for without a reasonable protective mechanism is deemed to harm the consumer’s private economic rights.
BPKN also urged the MK to provide a constitutional interpretation of Article 28 of the Telecommunication Act which is part of the Omnibus Law (UU Cipta Kerja). He said the government and regulators should be urged to issue technical rules requiring operators to offer fairer quota models, such as a rollover system (carrying over quota to the next period), extension of the active period, or compensation and refunds.
“BPKN respectfully requests that the Bench provide a constitutional interpretation of Article 71(2) of Law Number 6 of 2023, namely the setting of tariff levels and/or the scheme for the operation of the telecommunications network and/or telecommunications services by operators, based on a formula set by the central government, while taking into account consumer protection principles, information transparency, legal certainty, fairness of the service term, and proportional remedies for the benefits of the service paid for but not yet enjoyed. The protective mechanisms may include rollover or quota accumulation, extension of the active period, transfer of benefits, compensation, refunds, or other protections as determined by the regulator,” he said.
BPKN also called for stringent sanctions against telecom operators that violate information disclosure standards about the active period and real-time quota deletion mechanisms.
For reference, Article 71(2) of the Job Creation Act states:
The tariff for the provision of Telecommunications Network and/or Telecommunication Services is set by the operator according to a formula determined by the central government.
The central government may set upper and/or lower tariff limits for telecommunications provision while taking into account public interest and fair competition.
The requests in Case No. 273/PUU-XXIII/2025 were filed by online ride-hailing driver Didi Supandi and an online food vendor Wahyu Triana Sari. The request in Case No. 33/PUU-XXIV/2026 was filed by a student named TB Yaumul Hasan Hidayat.
Both petitions challenge the system of expiry of unused internet quotas when the quota’s active period ends by the telecom service provider. According to the applicants, the changes to Article 28 of the Telecommunication Act included in Article 71(2) of the Job Creation Act in 2023 do not reflect developments in information technology, especially regarding internet data growth. The applicants argue that unilateral quota expiry without consent and fair compensation contravene the principles of legal certainty and justice. They also request the MK to declare Article 71(2) of the Job Creation Act unconstitutional and not constitutionally binding (conditionally unconstitutional).