The rapid expansion of Indonesia’s online lending industry has not only generated service innovation, but has also created new dynamics in competition law. Business actors are expected to remain agile and responsive to market developments, yet they operate within the clear constraints established by Law No. 5 of 1999 concerning the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (“Competition Law”). While the legal framework provides firm boundaries, in practice it remains difficult to distinguish truly independent business decisions from conduct that reflects subtle coordination, particularly in the absence of explicit agreements.
Decision Number 05/KPPU-I/2025 presents an interesting and relevant example. In this case, the Commission Council of KPPU declared that all reported parties were legally and convincingly proven to have violated Article 5 of the Competition Law. This decision highlights that the issue at stake is not merely price fixing, but also the tendency of business actors to adopt similar patterns in determining their business strategies. Over time, such behavior may function as an informal benchmark, gradually influencing market conduct. As a result, the apparent independence of each actor becomes increasingly questionable.
The case concerning Information Technology-Based Lending and Borrowing Services (“Fintech P2P Lending”) involved 97 business actors, upon whom total fines amounting to approximately IDR 755 billion were imposed. Notably, the majority of the reported parties were subject only to the minimum fine of IDR 1 billion, indicating that despite the broad scale of the violation, the level of involvement of each business actor remained a relevant consideration in the imposition of sanctions.
At the surface level, this situation does not necessarily indicate the existence of an explicit agreement. There are no written contracts or formal arrangements binding business actors to act uniformly. Nevertheless, the outcome remains the same, as a reduction in the diversity of business strategies. Market choices become increasingly limited not due to a lack of participants, but because the approaches employed are largely similar. In such conditions, the market may appear dynamic, yet in reality it operates within a constrained space.
Competition law does not always rely on the existence of explicit agreements. Even in the absence of formal arrangements, systematic uniformity may still raise concerns if it has the potential to reduce the intensity of competition. For companies, following prevailing market patterns may seem like a safe strategy. However, this approach carries inherent risks, as excessive similarity can be interpreted as an indication of anti-competitive conduct. As a result, innovation becomes limited, and market entry grows more difficult due to the dominance of uniform approaches.
Against this backdrop, it is essential to revisit the fundamental essence of competition. Competition is not merely about the presence of multiple business actors, but about the existence of real differences in strategies, products, and innovation. This KPPU decision serves as a reminder that future challenges in competition law will not only revolve around proving explicit agreements, but also around interpreting market patterns and understanding their impact on business practices. If business actors continue to play it safe by following the same patterns, the true meaning of innovation and competition will be lost.
