Constitutional Court Hears Lawsuit Challenging Validity Period of Prepaid Internet Quotas
The Constitutional Court (MK) held its first hearing regarding a lawsuit challenging the validity period of prepaid internet quotas, on Wednesday (25/2).
The preliminary examination panel hearing for case number 68/PUU-XXIV/2026 was led by Deputy Chairman of the MK, Saldi Isra. Two other constitutional judges who participated in the hearing were Adies Kadir and Ridwan Mansyur.
Quoting from the MK website, the two petitioners, Achmad Safi’ (Petitioner I), who works as an online motorcycle taxi driver, together with the Deconstitute Democracy Study Institute (Petitioner II), filed a judicial review of Article 18 paragraph (1) letter f of Law 8/1999 concerning Consumer Protection and Article 71 paragraph 2 of the Job Creation Law (Ciptaker) regarding amendments to Article 28 paragraph (1) of Law Number 36 of 1999 concerning Telecommunications.
Safi’, as an online motorcycle taxi driver, stated that his constitutional rights were violated when his internet quota expired when the validity period on his prepaid card expired. In the hearing, Safi’ stated that he depends entirely on internet access through prepaid data quotas purchased from telecommunications service providers to carry out his daily work.
Meanwhile, regarding the losses experienced by Petitioner II, they experienced obstacles in carrying out the ‘Legal and Public Policy Consultation’ program and advocacy functions. According to the petitioner’s lawyer, they cannot provide clear legal advice to the public regarding rights related to the use of prepaid internet quotas.
Article 18 paragraph (1) letter f of the Consumer Protection Law states, “Business actors in offering goods and/or services intended for trade are prohibited from creating or including standard clauses in every document and/or agreement if: … f. giving the business actor the right to reduce the benefits of the service or reduce the consumer’s assets which are the object of the sale and purchase of services”.
Article 71 paragraph 2 of the Job Creation Law states, “The provisions of Article 28 are amended to read as follows: Article 28 (1) The amount of tariffs for the provision of telecommunications networks and/or telecommunications services is determined by the telecommunications network and/or telecommunications service providers based on a formula set by the Central Government”.
The petitioners’ lawyer, M Ramjahif Pahisa Gorya, stated that the norms being tested do not explicitly, expressly, and limitatively prohibit business actors from including standard clauses that give business actors the right to ‘eliminate’ consumer rights to “all or the remaining benefits of goods and/or services” that have been purchased and fully paid for.
Moreover, he added, for goods and/or services that control the necessities of many people, including internet quotas.
Ramjahif said that business actors have the freedom to set standard clauses in the form of limiting the validity period of internet quotas. Meanwhile, the elimination of benefits that have been paid for by consumers occurs without compensation and without adequate legal protection mechanisms.
The phrase ‘goods’ and consumer protection
The petitioners believe that the absence of the word ‘goods’ in Article 18 paragraph (1) letter f of the Consumer Protection Law makes the boundary between “goods” and “services” in the context of modern digital economics increasingly blurred or unclear.
The petitioners questioned the category of prepaid internet quotas; as “goods” or “services”. On the one hand, internet quotas can be categorized as telecommunications services, because they provide access to internet services.
However, on the other hand, internet quotas purchased in the form of prepaid packages have the characteristics of goods because they can be “stored” in consumer accounts, have a measurable volume (in GB), and can be “used up” gradually like disposable goods. The same applies to other digital products, which have the characteristics of goods and services.
According to the petitioners, the absence of the word ‘goods’ in the article being tested creates a loophole for business actors to avoid consumer protection by claiming that their products are ‘services’ when they want to avoid obligations that apply to goods.
On the other hand, business actors claim that their products are ‘goods’ when they want to avoid obligations that apply to services.
Then, the word ‘reduce’ in the provision of Article 18 paragraph (1) letter f of the Consumer Protection Law also contains limitations and normative ambiguity.
By only using the word “reduce”, which means a partial or partial reduction, the formulation of the norm literally creates a gray area for other actions that are substantively more detrimental to consumers.
According to the petitioners, when associated with the system of eliminating the remaining prepaid internet quotas, a gray area will arise if it wants to be interpreted as ‘reducing benefits’.
The petitioners believe that there is an interpretation gap in the word ‘reduce’.
“The elimination of the remaining prepaid internet quotas can also be interpreted outside of ‘reduce’, because ‘reduce’ implies that there is still some left that can be used; while ‘eliminate’ means there is nothing left at all,” said the petitioner.
In response to the petition, Saldi asked the petitioners to submit evidence regarding the excess quota expiring and disrupting activities.
“In addition, there is evidence of using excess quota, and then because of that it disrupts the activities of Petitioner II. So it must be explained in more detail, which is related to the legal standing,” said Saldi.
Saldi then gave the petitioners the opportunity to revise their petition within 14 days.