Internet Quota Expiry Challenged at the Constitutional Court, Petitioners Argue Operators are Harming Consumers

The unclear expiry date for prepaid internet quota is being challenged at the Constitutional Court. A ride-hailing driver, along with a legal research institution, is suing the consumer protection and telecommunications regulations, arguing that they allow mobile operators to terminate unused quota unilaterally without compensation.

The petition was filed by Achmad Safi’i, a ride-hailing driver, together with the Deconstitute Democracy Studies Institute, during a preliminary examination hearing for Case Number 68/PUU-XXIV/2026, held on Wednesday (February 25). The panel hearing was chaired by Deputy Chairman of the Constitutional Court, Saldi Isra.

The Petitioners are challenging Article 18 paragraph (1) letter f of the Consumer Protection Law and Article 71 paragraph 2 of the Job Creation Law regarding the regulation of telecommunications service tariffs. Both of these provisions are considered not to explicitly prohibit the practice of terminating prepaid internet quota that has been fully paid for by consumers.

The Petitioner’s legal counsel, M. Ramjahif Pahisa Gorya, emphasized that the provision being tested creates a large loophole for businesses.

“The law does not explicitly prohibit businesses from terminating all or the remaining benefits of services that consumers have already paid for. As a result, the limitation of internet quota validity is carried out unilaterally without compensation and without adequate legal protection,” he said before the panel.

According to the Petitioners, the practice of internet quota expiring is very detrimental, especially since data quota has become a basic need for modern society. Achmad Safi’i stated that he relies entirely on the internet to work as a ride-hailing driver.

“When the quota expires simply because of the validity period, even though the card is still active, it harms us as small consumers who depend on the internet to earn a living,” stated Petitioner I in his petition.

Meanwhile, Petitioner II stated that the uncertainty of the provision hinders the function of advocacy and public education. They find it difficult to provide clear legal advice regarding consumer rights to prepaid internet quota.

In the main petition, the Petitioners also question the blurred boundaries between “goods” and “services” in the digital economy. The absence of the phrase “goods” in Article 18 paragraph (1) letter f of the Consumer Protection Law is considered to create a loophole for interpretation.

According to the Petitioners, internet quota has a dual character: as a telecommunications service as well as a digital good that can be stored, measured, and gradually used up.

In addition, the use of the word “reduce” in the article is considered problematic. The Petitioners believe that this phrase only covers partial reduction, not total termination.

“The termination of the remaining quota cannot be equated with ‘reducing benefits,’ because terminating means eliminating all consumer rights,” said Ramjahif.

On that basis, the Petitioners requested that the Constitutional Court declare the articles being tested unconstitutional conditionally, as long as they are not interpreted as prohibiting the reduction, limitation of time, or termination of benefits of goods and/or services that have been paid for, especially prepaid internet quota as long as the card is still active.

In his advice, Constitutional Court Judge Ridwan Mansyur reminded the Petitioners to review Constitutional Court Decision Number 23/PUU-XX/2022 so that the petition is not declared res judicata.

“The legal standing and constitutional harm of the Petitioners need to be elaborated more clearly so that there is a direct relationship between the provision being tested and the harm suffered,” said Ridwan.

Constitutional Court Judge Adies Kadir also highlighted the inconsistency of the constitutional testing basis used by the Petitioners.

“It must be clarified which articles of the Constitution are used as the basis for testing and how the constitutional harm arises,” he said.

Meanwhile, Deputy Chairman of the Constitutional Court, Saldi Isra, asked Petitioner II to prove its legal standing as a private legal entity and to describe the harm in concrete terms.

“It must be explained how the limitation of the quota actually disrupts the institutional activities of Petitioner II,” said Saldi. (Dev/P-3)