Jakarta court annuls KPPU's IDR 755 bn fines on online lenders over interest-rate ceiling

Implications for lenders

Online lenders operating in Indonesia may no longer need to provision for their share of the IDR 755 bn in fines, although an appeal could reopen the case. Pricing decisions taken under an association ceiling can be documented as each lender's own, which can help if competition questions arise again.

Implications

Facts

The ruling: a panel of the Commercial Court at the Central Jakarta District Court granted the objections of online lending (pindar) operators and annulled KPPU decision No. 05/KPPU-I/2025. ¹ The case was brought by 71 petitioners, according to the court's case record as reported. KPPU was ordered to pay the court costs.

The original decision: in March 2026 KPPU found that 97 platforms had breached Article 5 of Law 5/1999, which prohibits price fixing, by agreeing interest-rate limits, and imposed fines totalling IDR 755 bn. ² The limits had been set by the industry association AFPI; AFPI says they were a maximum on the economic benefit charged to borrowers, set under OJK guidance to protect consumers from predatory lending and from high-interest illegal lending.

Reasoning: the judges held that a ceiling differs from price fixing because platforms remain free to set their own rates below it, and that it protects consumers from arbitrary pricing. They also said businesses cannot be punished for following the directions of the authority that supervises them, and called for better coordination between state institutions. AFPI chairman Kuseryansyah welcomed the ruling as giving the industry legal certainty. KPPU's response had not been reported at publication.

Analysis

Market context: the ruling concerns an industry whose outstanding loans reached IDR 106.94 trn at the end of August, up from IDR 105.63 trn at end-July, ³ with the share of loans more than 90 days overdue (TWP90) at 4.73%. ⁴ Had the fines stood, they would have been a cost spread across most licensed platforms at a time when OJK is also asking them to hold more capital and reserves.

Region: elsewhere in Southeast Asia, the authorities are direct parties to consumer-credit price limits rather than leaving them to an industry association. Malaysia's basic credit cards carry a 14% a year financing-rate limit agreed between the finance ministry, Bank Negara Malaysia and banks, ⁵ and Thailand's draft buy-now-pay-later rules would cap interest and charges at 15% a year (effective rate). ⁶ The Indonesian case shows the legal risk when a limit is written into an association code at a regulator's request instead of in the regulator's own rule.

Counterpoints and uncertainties

KPPU may seek cassation at the Supreme Court, which could restore the fines; reports did not give KPPU's position. The ruling covers the petitioners in this case, and the reports do not say how it applies to platforms that did not object. Reports give different March dates for the original KPPU decision, and the full judgment had not been published.