Problems in digital/electronic agreements in Indonesia consist of 4 (four) related to the validity of electronic contracts in the form of agreements and electronic signatures, settlement of electronic contract disputes in the form of mechanisms and evidence, challenges to consumer protection of electronic contracts, and anticipation of preventing electronic contract fraud. Considering the estimated number of uses of digital standard agreements in the future, the amendment to the Consumer Protection Act must include regulations regarding digital standard agreements containing digital standard clauses.

Currently, there are laws and regulations related to Electronic Systems and Transactions and various matters regarding digital standard agreements, such as the validity requirements and electronic signatures, namely: Law No. 19 of 2016 concerning Amendments to Law No. 11 of 2008 concerning Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE Law) and Government Regulation No. 71 of 2019 concerning the Implementation of Electronic Systems and Transactions (PP PSTE).

With these problems, changes are needed in several regulations related to the use of standard agreements, one of which is the Consumer Protection Act. Until now, the enforcement of the Consumer Protection Act still faces various obstacles caused by many factors. One of the factors referred to is the errors, shortcomings, and weaknesses of the regulations in the Consumer Protection Act itself, namely in the aspects of:

  1. Law Grammar;
  2. Law Systematics;
  3. Business Actor Responsibility;
  4. Consumer Dispute Resolution;
  5. Institutional.

According to the Consumer Protection Act, consumer disputes can be resolved through two channels, namely: through the district court, or often referred to as the litigation process, and through the Consumer Dispute Resolution Agency (BPSK), or often referred to as the non-litigation process. However, with the development of all aspects of human life towards online processes, as a future solution, the consumer dispute resolution process (including the settlement of standard agreement disputes) must be carried out online. This is called online dispute resolution (ODR).

Closing

Standard agreements, both non-digital and digital, have the potential to harm consumers because they are prepared, made, and used unilaterally by business actors. This makes it easy for business actors to include standard clauses containing exoneration clauses. The practice of using standard agreements has the potential to be misused by business actors, because the Consumer Protection Act is still open to multiple interpretations, the supervisory system is not structured, and consumers do not yet understand the legal consequences of a standard agreement.

The government needs to make changes to the Consumer Protection Act by clarifying the criteria for standard agreements containing standard clauses that contain exoneration clauses. In an effort to protect consumer rights using standard agreements, the government must carry out intensive and massive socialization for business actors regarding prohibited standard clauses. Consumers who feel their rights have been violated must submit complaints to business actors until they are able to demand their rights, both through litigation and non-litigation.

References

  • Gunawan, Johannes, Bernadette M. Waluyo, Budiono Kusumohamidjojo, David Tobing, Megawati Simanjuntak, and J. Widijantoro. Perjanjian Baku Masalah dan Solusi. Jakarta: Consumer Protection in ASEAN (Protect), 2021.
  • Malohing, Yanti. “Kedudukan Perjanjian Baku Kaitannya dengan Asas Kebebasan Berkontrak.” Lex Privatum V, no. 4 (2017): 8.
  • Renathan, Aldo. “Tinjauan Yuridis terhadap Klausula Baku sebagai Suatu Perjanjian Dilihat dari Sisi Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata dan UUPK.” Universitas Indonesia, 2009, 90.
  • Satory, Agus. “Standard Agreements and Consumer Protection in Financial Services Sector Business Transactions: Application and its Implementation in Indonesia.” PADJADJARAN Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (Journal of Law) 2, no. 2 (2015): 269–90. https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v2n2.a4.