PSHK Pusat Studi Hukum & Kebijakan Indonesia Indonesia Centre for Law & Policy Studies

Study on Unfair Trade Practices (UTPs) in Indonesia Research Project on Unfair Trade Practices in Select ASEAN Countries First Policy Dialogue Ho Chi Minh City (Vietnam), 12 th September 2012 Team Leader: Ningrum Natasya Sirait Team Members: 1. Muhammad Faiz Aziz 2. Siti Maryam Rodja 3. Rachmad Maulana Firmansyah

Contents I II IV III Activities of Study Result Findings from Literature Research Findings from Perception Survey Conclusion & The Way Forward

Objectives Highlighting the relevance of designing appropriate regulatory frameworks Capturing the perceptions and expectations of relevant stakeholders groups Facilitating contacts and networking between relevant stakeholder groups Generating attention and supporting dialogues amongst members Activities Research on UTPs legal and institutional framework (and also enforcement record and cases) Perception surveys Policy dialogues Details Study on regulation, institution and cases Survey on 35 respondents from business actors, resource persons, practitioners and authorized agencies In depth interview with relevant stakeholders Participation in Policy Dialogue

Contents I II IV III Activities of Study Result Findings from Literature Research Findings from Perception Survey Conclusion & The Way Forward

Definition of UTPs Unfair Trade Practices encompass a broad array of torts, all of which involve economic injury brought on by deceptive or wrongful conduct (UTPs annotations by CUTS).

No formal definition of UTPs in Indonesia. Similar concept is found in Indonesian Criminal Code Article 382 bis 383. However, the Code regulates lesser detail than Competition Law and Consumer Law. Art 382 bis Fraudulent act or misled in business expansion which caused loss to competitors Art 383 Deceptive act regarding goods quality, quantity and delivery

UTPs related regulations and authorized institutions

On Law on consumer protection, 352 district courts possess the authority to handle consumers’ complaints in addition to BPSK. Both Competition Law No.5/1999 and Consumers Law No. 8/1999 have definition of consumer. However, each definition posed a different scope of meaning.

UTPs related regulations and authorized institutions (specific sector regulations and agency) Only Banking Mediation has authority to settle consumer dispute and remedies.

UTPs related regulations and authorized institutions (specific sector regulations and agency) *BPOM has no authority to settle consumers’ disputes.

Enforcement Record (only KPPU provides data) Five largest Number of Cases in Competition Law ( ) KPPU is the only institution providing complete enforcement record regarding UTPs in competition area since others do not provide detail data regarding UTPs in each specific sector and difficult to access.

Enforcement Record (only KPPU provides data) UTPs cases of Competition Law ( )

The Facts on UTPs Cases in Competition Law

The Facts on UTPs Cases in Consumers Law

The Way It Has Been Dealt

Contents I II IV III Activities of Study Result Findings from Literature Research Findings from Perception Survey Conclusion & The Way Forward

Stakeholder’s Perspectives 35 respondents: 23 respondents or 65.71% from business actors (including small-scaled business actors and business organizations); 8 respondents (22.86%) from resource persons/practitioners; and 4 respondents (11.43%) from relevant authorities related to UTPs. Methodology: Interview and open-ended questionnaires.

Stakeholder’s Perspectives Contact with relevant authorities Access to relevant authorities

Stakeholder’s Perspectives Cooperation with relevant authorities Regulation Enforcement

Stakeholder’s Perspectives Do current regulations need to be amended ? UTPs still prevail or resolved? Widespread of UTPs

Stakeholder’s Perspectives Do the UTPs affect small-scaled business actors, consumers and investment climate? Effect of UTPs in investment climate and consumers’ demand

Stakeholder’s Perspectives Most UTPs in Competition Law Most UTPs in Consumer Law

Stakeholder’s Perspectives UTPs Actors The Cause of UTPs

Stakeholder’s Perspectives

Joint Arrangement

Contents I II IV III Activities of Study Result Findings from Literature Research Findings from Perception Survey Conclusion & The Way Forward

Thank you

Pusat Studi Hukum & Kebijakan Indonesia Indonesian Centre for Law & Policy Studies Pusat Studi Hukum & Kebijakan Indonesia Indonesian Centre for Law & Policy Studies “Toward Socially Responsible Lawmaking” The fall of the “New Order” regime in 1998 revealed the long-standing flaws within government systems; flaws that were hidden and buried for the benefit of certain people. Subsequently, commitments to reform were declared on topics ranging from politics to economics. Law is primary area in dire need of reform. Law is also needed to provide a sound regulatory platform for systemic changes in many areas. Clearly, legal reform is needed in Indonesia; and legal reform needs serious study and advocacy. Thus, PSHK (Centre for Indonesian Law and Policy Studies) was established in 1 July PSHK is not about jargons on legal reform, nor it is about mere complaints and anger on present situation. Rather, PSHK is focused on having a highly-engaged, meaningful role in Indonesian legal reform.