Strange and Extraordinary: Expert's Response to Allegations of Online Loan Interest Cartel

Jakarta, CNBC Indonesia - The decision by the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) regarding the discovery of an online loan interest cartel has elicited varied views from various parties. As is known, in relation to that decision, the KPPU has imposed fines on 97 online lending companies totaling Rp755 billion.

This, of course, burdens the industry. It is therefore no surprise that the Indonesian Joint Funding Fintech Association (AFPI) considers the KPPU to be overly forceful. Because AFPI views that there was no agreement on the maximum economic benefit limit (interest rate).

According to the Director of Digital Economy at the Center of Economic and Law Studies (CELIOS), Nailul Huda, the KPPU itself is currently riding high after winning the Google case.

However, the issue is that there was knowledge from the regulator regarding the establishment of the economic benefit limit.

“Even if we trace the timeline of the case, before the establishment of the economic benefit or interest limit, the benefits and interest set by each platform were higher. That’s why many pushed for the regulation of that limit,” Nailul explained to CNBC Indonesia on Sunday (29/3/2026).

According to him, due to a regulatory vacuum, there was an establishment by the association, which is referential in nature, similar to what Bank Indonesia does. On that basis, this interest rate setting actually benefits consumers.

“On the other hand, the most felt impact is on lenders, not borrowers. Lenders as fund owners will rethink credibility. When that happens, it will impact distribution as well. Whereas if you look at the pinjol demand, I think it is still quite high. Borrowers don’t really care about the KPPU decision,” he emphasised.

According to him, borrowers will prioritise whether financing can still be provided or not, rather than looking at the KPPU decision.

“Industry players should file a new lawsuit. However, since many platforms are implicated, whether they can do it individually or all together. I think the Indonesian Joint Funding Fintech Association (AFPI) can facilitate that,” Nailul concluded.

The Financial Services Authority (OJK) itself respects the KPPU’s decision. As is known, that decision was issued by the KPPU Panel Chairman in Case Number 05/KPPU-I/2025, which was read out in the trial regarding allegations of violations of Article 5 of Law Number 5 of 1999 related to online money lending or technology-based joint funding services.

Head of the Literacy, Financial Inclusion, and Communication Department, M. Ismail Riyadi, stated that in that decision, the KPPU Panel declared all respondents proven to have lawfully and convincingly violated Article 5 of Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unhealthy Business Competition.

“OJK will continue to encourage the pinjol (online loan) industry to strengthen the implementation of governance, risk management, and consumer protection to realise a healthy, integrous pinjol industry that benefits society,” he said in a written statement.

To strengthen the pinjol industry, OJK has issued OJK Circular Letter (SEOJK) Number 19 of 2025 on the Implementation of Technology-Based Joint Funding Services (LPBBTI).

Those provisions, among others, regulate the limits on economic benefits that can be imposed by online loan providers on fund recipients, as an effort to ensure healthy, transparent business practices oriented towards consumer protection.

In addition, OJK has also issued provisions regulating governance, risk management, the health level of pinjol providers, and compiled a Roadmap for the Development and Strengthening of LPBBTI for 2023-2028, aimed at improving the effectiveness and efficiency of supervision, encouraging better industry governance, and strengthening consumer and public protection.

“OJK will continue to monitor industry developments and ensure that every LPBBTI provider conducts its business in accordance with applicable provisions, to maintain stability in the financial services sector and increase public trust in digital financial services,” he concluded.

Previously, AFPI expressed regret over the decision, stating that it does not reflect the open facts throughout the examination hearing.

In fact, the approach applied in the industry, including the maximum economic benefit limit, is part of efforts to protect consumers and clearly differentiate from illegal online loan (pinjol) practices. This has also been the applicable regulatory framework under OJK supervision.

AFPI General Chairman, Entjik S. Djafar, expressed disappointment with the KPPU decision, noting that the maximum economic benefit limit at that time was guidance from OJK to protect consumers from predatory lending practices and illegal pinjol that charged very high interest rates.

“Therefore, the majority of association members will appeal the KPPU decision,” Entjik said in his official statement some time ago.