ALAKA Secures a Major Win in a Competition Law Case, Overturning KPPU’s IDR 100.9 Billion Fine Against AsetKu
ALAKA Strategic Legal Consulting is pleased to announce a significant outcome in its representation of PT Pintar Inovasi Digital (AsetKu) before the Commercial Court in proceedings challenging the Indonesia Competition Commission (Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha or KPPU) Decision No. 05/KPPU-I/2025.
On 22 October 2026, the Panel of Judges granted the Applicants’ objection petition and annulled the KPPU Decision under challenge, which had imposed a fine of IDR 100.9 billion on AsetKu. The Respondent was also ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings. The ruling represents a significant development for AsetKu and Indonesia’s fintech lending industry, particularly in relation to the application of competition law within a regulated financial services sector.
The Dispute: Competition Law and Fintech Regulation
The proceedings arose from KPPU’s finding that AsetKu had violated Article 5 of Law No. 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition, in connection with the maximum economic benefit limit under the Indonesian Joint Funding Fintech Association (Asosiasi Fintech Pendanaan Bersama Indonesia or “AFPI”) Code of Conduct.
A central issue was whether the maximum economic benefit cap of 0.8% per day constituted a price-fixing arrangement among competing businesses or reflected the implementation of directions from the Financial Services Authority (Otoritas Jasa Keuangan or OJK). In examining the case, the Panel considered OJK’s supervisory authority and its role in directing the implementation of the cap through AFPI. The Panel’s reasoning distinguished the implementation of regulatory directions from a voluntarily formed horizontal price-fixing agreement.
The Court also considered that a maximum limit does not necessarily require all providers to charge the same rate. Providers may continue to set different rates below the prescribed ceiling, while differences in business models, financing risks, and service characteristics may be relevant to defining the market in which fintech providers operate.
A Significant Outcome for AsetKu
The annulment of the KPPU Decision marks an important legal milestone for AsetKu, overturning the decision that formed the basis for the IDR 100.9 billion fine at the Commercial Court level. Beyond its immediate financial significance, the case highlights the importance of assessing alleged anti-competitive conduct within its full legal and regulatory context.
In regulated industries, common standards and maximum price limits must be examined alongside the regulatory framework, the nature of the conduct, and the legal elements required to establish a competition law infringement. The proceedings also underscore the importance of distinguishing between compliance with regulatory directions and a voluntary agreement among competitors to fix prices.
ALAKA’s Commitment to Strategic Legal Advocacy
ALAKA’s representation of AsetKu reflects its commitment to strategic legal advocacy in complex competition law disputes. The proceedings required consideration of procedural issues, the evidentiary basis for the alleged infringement, relevant market definition, and the relationship between OJK’s supervisory framework and competition law. ALAKA is proud to have assisted AsetKu in achieving this significant outcome and remains committed to supporting businesses navigating complex regulatory and competition law challenges in Indonesia.
Looking Ahead
The Commercial Court’s decision represents a significant milestone for AsetKu. Further procedural developments remain relevant, as KPPU may pursue cassation before the Supreme Court in accordance with the applicable procedural rules. The ultimate procedural status of the decision should therefore be assessed by reference to the formal judgment and any subsequent legal proceedings.
ALAKA congratulates AsetKu on this important outcome and will continue to support its clients through rigorous legal analysis and strategic representation.
This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The description of the Court’s reasoning is based on ALAKA’s summary of the decision. The legal status of the decision and any subsequent proceedings should be verified against the formal judgment and relevant procedural developments.
Comments