<![CDATA[The rapid expansion of fintech lending services in Indonesia carries significant legal consequences, particularly concerning the bargaining imbalance between platform operators and consumers. Agreements unilaterally standardized by business actors frequently place consumers in a disadvantageous position with no room for negotiation. This study examines whether the standard clauses contained in Kredivo's agreement reflect the principle of balance as stipulated in Article 2 letter c of Law Number 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection. A normative approach is employed, utilizing comparative analysis against the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, OJK Regulation Number 10/POJK.05/2022, and the consumer protection theory of Prof. Moch. Isnaeni. The findings reveal that Kredivo's agreement still contains at least three clauses potentially null and void by law: the liability transfer clause for merchant goods and services, the unilateral amendment clause for terms and fees, and the indemnification clause exempting Kredivo from third-party claims related to emergency contact collection. All three clauses directly contravene the prohibitions in Article 18 paragraph (1) of the Consumer Protection Act and do not yet reflect the balance principle required by regulation. Recommendations are directed to OJK to strengthen oversight of standard agreement content, to Kredivo to revise the problematic clauses, and to consumers to enhance their legal awareness.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
