Priviet Social Sciences Journal

The regulator’s dilemma in proving algorithmic cartels against the principle of fair competition in the digital economy era

by Tengku Andrias Prayudha , David Banjarnahor , Auliya Rochman , Sy. Muhammad Ikhsan , Alifah Nur Fitriana Naridha
Vol. 5 No. 12 (2025): December 2025

Abstract

The rapid development of the digital economy, marked by the adoption of pricing algorithms, has introduced new dynamics to Indonesia's competition law landscape. Algorithmic systems enable autonomous price setting based on market data learning without direct human intervention. This condition potentially gives rise to algorithmic cartels, a form of market coordination occurring without explicit agreement, yet producing anti-competitive effects similar to conventional cartels. The national legal framework, specifically Law No. 5 of 1999 and KPPU Regulation No. 4 of 2010, remains inadequate to address this phenomenon, as it is still anchored to a traditional paradigm requiring the element of “agreement” as a prerequisite for proving violation. This study aims to analyze the dilemma faced by the regulator (KPPU) in proving the existence of algorithmic cartels against the principle of fair competition in the digital era. Employing a normative juridical approach, this study examines relevant legislation, academic literature, and international policies from the OECD and European Commission. The findings indicate a regulatory gap in Indonesia's competition law regarding proof involving autonomous systems. Furthermore, the KPPU faces conceptual and technical obstacles in determining legal intent (legal intent) and the validity of digital evidence derived from algorithmic systems. The study concludes that proving algorithmic cartels must shift from an intent-based approach to an effects-based approach, which focuses on assessing the economic impact on market structure and consumer welfare. Therefore, strategic recommendations include reinterpreting the element of “agreement” in Article 1, paragraph 7, and Article 11 of Law No. 5 of 1999 to encompass algorithmic coordination that generates anti-competitive effects. Additionally, the KPPU is mandated to develop digital evidence guidelines and strengthen the multidisciplinary institutional capacity to effectively oversee algorithmic behavior. These steps are crucial for Indonesian competition law to adapt to the realities of the digital economy while ensuring justice and legal certainty.

References

  1. Bundeskartellamt, & Concurrence, A. de la. (2019). Algorithms and Competition. Bundeskartellamt 18th Conference on Competition, November. https://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/sites/default/files/algorithms-and-competition.pdf
  2. Calvano, E., Calzolari, G., Denicolò, V., & Pastorello, S. (2020). Artificial Intelligence, Algorithmic Pricing, and Collusion. American Economic Review, 110(10), 3267–3297. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20190623
  3. Dr. Siti Mariyam, S. H. M. H. (2023). Buku Hukum Persaingan Usaha dalam Tanya Jawab. Penerbit Lawwana. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=RAvjEAAAQBAJ
  4. Erlangga, W. D., & Arrisman, . (2021). Analisis Kekuatan Alat Bukti Tidak Langsung dalam Pembuktian Dugaan Praktik Kartel. Jurnal Supremasi, 11, 31–47. https://doi.org/10.35457/supremasi.v11i2.1335
  5. Ezrachi, A., & Stucke, M. E. (2016). Virtual Competition. Harvard University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv24w63h3
  6. Financial, D. F. O. R., Affairs, E., & Committee, C. (2023). Algorithmic competition – Note by Denmark 14. 1–10.
  7. KPPU. (2010). Peraturan KPPU No. 4 Tahun 2010 tentang Pedoman Pasal 11 tentang Kartel Berdasarkan UU No. 5 Tahun 1999 tentang Larangan Praktek Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat. Kppu, 4, 29.
  8. Madiega, T. (2024). EU Legislation in progress Briefing: AI Act. Official Journal On, 12(June), 1–13. www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2021/698792/EPRS_BRI%282021%29698792_EN.pdf
  9. Mehra, S. K. (2016). Antitrust and the robo-seller: Competition in the time of algorithms. Minnesota Law Review, 100(4), 1323–1375.
  10. Motta, M. (2004). Competition Policy: Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=J3xZnDSlfC8C
  11. OECD. (2017a). Algorithms and collusion. OECD (2017), Algorithms and Collusion: Competition Policy in the Digital Age, 1–66. www.oecd.org/competition/algorithms-collusion-competition-policy-in-the-digital-age.htm
  12. OECD. (2017b). Algorithms and Collusion - Background Note by the Secretariat. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, June, 21–23. http://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/algorithms-and-collusion.htm
  13. Saputra, R. (2025). KPPU Ingatkan Bahaya Kolusi Algoritma, Desak Revisi UU Persaingan Usaha. DetikNews. https://news.detik.com/berita/d-8198546/kppu-ingatkan-bahaya-kolusi-algoritma-desak-revisi-uu-persaingan-usaha?
  14. Soekanto, S. (1983). Faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi penegakan hukum. Rajawali. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=BK2aHAAACAAJ
  15. UNCTAD secretariat. (2021). Competition law, policy and regulation in the digital era. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 05612(19th session).