Constitutional Court Orders Mobile Operators to Provide Options Ensuring Customers' Remaining Data Quota Does Not Expire
The Constitutional Court (MK) has partially granted a judicial review petition concerning the forfeiture of internet data quota, mandating that operators provide service options ensuring customers’ remaining quota remains active and usable. Chief Justice Suhartoyo read the verdict in Jakarta on Thursday, stating that petition number 273/PUU-XXIII/2025 was partially granted.
The court declared that Article 28 paragraph (1) in Article 71 point 2 of the Annex to Law Number 6 of 2023 on Job Creation is conditionally unconstitutional and lacks binding legal force unless it is interpreted to mean that telecommunications operators are obliged to provide service options guaranteeing that users’ remaining quota remains active and can be used.
In its considerations, Constitutional Justice Adies Kadir stated that telecommunications tariffs must reflect the value of services received by users, including protection for internet quota that has been paid for but not yet utilised. The court asserted that users with remaining quota, whether on prepaid or postpaid plans, must receive legal protection for those rights.
The court noted that this protection could be implemented through various service options, such as quota accumulation or rollover, extension of the active period, transfer of benefits, compensation, refunds, or other mechanisms. The court assessed that these service options need to be explicitly regulated to provide legal certainty for operators while ensuring fair protection for consumers.
Quota that has not been fully used must be protected as the property of the telecommunications service user or be usable until exhausted without additional charges or tariffs, the court stated. The MK also ruled that the government must establish a tariff formula that is adaptive to technological developments, business models, and public needs while prioritising consumer protection. Furthermore, the government and telecommunications operators are required to involve stakeholders and consumer protection agencies when making tariff adjustments.
The case was filed by online motorcycle taxi driver Didi Supandi and online culinary trader Wahyu Triana Sari, who challenged the provisions of Article 71 point 2 of Law Number 6 of 2023 on Job Creation. Their legal counsel, Viktor Santoso Tandiasa, argued that the article contained multi-interpretable norms without limiting parameters, giving operators absolute freedom to conflate service tariffs and ownership duration. This created legal uncertainty for consumers, who could not understand why data they had fully paid for could be lost due to a unilaterally determined time variable.