<![CDATA[The development of sharia-based financial technology (fintech) in Indonesia has experienced significant growth in line with the increasing demand for digital financing services that operate in accordance with Islamic sharia principles. Data from the Financial Services Authority (OJK) indicate that, as of early 2025, dozens of Information Technology-Based Joint Funding Services (Layanan Pendanaan Bersama Berbasis Teknologi Informasi/LPBBTI) providers were operating based on sharia principles, while consumer complaints in the financial services sector processed by the Alternative Dispute Resolution Institution for Financial Services Sector (Lembaga Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa Sektor Jasa Keuangan/LAPS SJK) also included a significant proportion from the fintech sector. Cases of payment defaults and business activity restrictions affecting sharia-based fintech peer-to-peer lending providers in late 2025 underscore the urgent need for effective dispute resolution mechanisms. This study aims to analyze the relevant laws and regulations, examine dispute resolution mechanisms, and assess the effectiveness of regulations and dispute resolution institutions for sharia-based fintech in Indonesia. This study employs a normative juridical method using statutory and conceptual approaches, supported by secondary data consisting of laws and regulations, fatwas issued by the National Sharia Board of the Indonesian Ulema Council (DSN-MUI), Constitutional Court decisions, and legal literature, which are analyzed using a qualitative-descriptive method. The results show that the legal framework for dispute resolution in sharia-based fintech is dispersed across Law Number 4 of 2023, Financial Services Authority Regulation Number 40/POJK.03/2024, and Financial Services Authority Regulation Number 61/POJK.07/2020, with a tiered mechanism ranging from internal dispute resolution, mediation and arbitration through LAPS SJK, to litigation before the Religious Courts. This study also identifies problems concerning the unclear jurisdiction of dispute resolution institutions, limited availability of human resources with sharia certification, and the limited enforceability of alternative dispute resolution decisions, which hinder the effectiveness of legal protection for sharia-based fintech consumers.]]>
