<![CDATA[Background: Indonesia's e-commerce transaction value reached Rp134.67 trillion in Q3 2025, reflecting rapid digital economic growth. This growth exposes a structural paradox: the principle of equality justifying state intervention against negotiating imbalances is undermined by three overlapping frameworks, the Consumer Protection Law (UUPK), the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (UU ITE), and the Personal Data Protection Law (UU PDP), which define protected legal subjects differently, enforce rights through separate institutions, and were never designed to interact. Because Indonesia's state legal order is itself religiously and normatively plural, this fragmentation is compounded, for the country's Muslim-majority consumer base, by a further, largely uncoordinated layer of halal-assurance and shariah-compliance regulation that intersects with, but is not integrated into, the UUPK–ITE–PDP triad. Purpose: This study addresses three questions: how fragmentation among the UUPK, UU ITE, and UU PDP, read together with Indonesia's pluralistic legal architecture, including the halal product assurance regime, produces overlapping protections while leaving gaps in composite digital harm combining economic loss, data breach, and reputational damage; how enforcement institutions under these regimes interact, or fail to interact, in practice; and how substantive equality can be reconstructed, as fragmented equality, to restore institutional coherence for all Indonesian digital consumers, including the specific religious-identity interests of Muslim consumers. In answering these, the study formulates a conceptual and institutional model for integrated consumer protection enforcement. Methods: This study adopts a socio-legal approach, combining normative-doctrinal analysis of the UUPK, UU ITE, and UU PDP with documentary analysis of institutional practice, including live-commerce disputes, the Constitutional Court's review of UUPK and UU PDP (2025–2026), and secondary evidence of enforcement gaps including BPKN's jurisdictional limits and the absence of an independent data protection authority. Results: The three laws define disparate legal subjects, "consumers," "users," and "data subjects," creating enforcement gaps in composite digital harm, illustrated by live-commerce transactions. Applying Fredman's substantive equality framework, Fineman's vulnerability theory, and a legal-pluralism lens attentive to the coexistence of state law with religiously grounded shariah-compliance norms, the study finds this dysfunction stems not from an absence of norms but from fragmented institutional design and uneven enforcement authority, particularly BPKN's limited cross-border jurisdiction, the absence of an independent data protection authority, and the unintegrated position of the halal-assurance regime administered by BPJPH. Implication: Drawing on the European Union's model of horizontal regulatory integration (GDPR, DSA, CRD), the study proposes a "Coherent Digital Consumer Gateway" as an integrated enforcement mechanism, alongside an independent data protection authority, substantive modernization of the Electronic Commerce Law, and formal inclusion of the halal-assurance and shariah-compliance regime within the Gateway's coordination mandate. Originality: Unlike prior studies examining the UUPK, UU ITE, and UU PDP separately, this study centers on their interaction and dysfunction as its primary object, introduces "fragmented equality" as a framework linking institutional fragmentation to the doctrine of substantive equality, and is among the first to read that fragmentation through Indonesia's legal pluralism, extending the analysis to the position of Muslim consumers whose protection needs combine economic, informational, and religious-identity dimensions ]]>
