<![CDATA[Affiliate marketing has become part of platform-based commerce, yet its contractual architecture may transfer disproportionate economic and procedural risks to affiliates. This article examines the legal position of Indonesian digital affiliates who promote products through e-commerce platforms under standard electronic partnership agreements. It asks whether valid adhesion clauses can remain binding when platforms reserve unilateral authority to modify commissions, alter algorithmic attribution, suspend accounts, or impose inaccessible dispute forums. Using normative-doctrinal legal research, the study analyses the Indonesian Civil Code, electronic-transactions regulation, consumer law, and electronic-commerce rules, supplemented by comparative scholarship on unfair terms, dependent contracting, algorithmic management, and online dispute resolution. The findings show that affiliates occupy a regulatory borderland: they are neither consumers nor readily classifiable employees, despite being economically dependent on platform-controlled infrastructure. Formal consent therefore cannot, by itself, establish substantive contractual legitimacy. The article proposes a functional category of platform-dependent affiliates and a proportionality-based fairness test examining transparency, legitimate purpose, necessity, risk allocation, and effective redress. It further recommends mandatory notice, auditable commission rules, reasoned decisions, human review, collective representation, and independent online dispute resolution. These measures would preserve commercial innovation while preventing contractual freedom from becoming an instrument of hidden exploitation in Indonesia’s digital economy.]]>
