Direct Legal Intervention by OJK: Impacts for Financial Service Providers Under the Draft RPOJK
Authors
Overview
In September 2025, Indonesia’s Financial Services Authority ("OJK"") issued a draft regulation (“RPOJK”) that formally allows OJK to represent and defend consumers in the financial sector through lawsuit. This initiative builds on Article 30(1)(b) of Law No. 21 of 2011 on the Financial Services Authority, as amended by Law No. 4 of 2023 concerning Development and Strengthening of Financial Services (collectively referred to as “Law 21/2011”), which already grants OJK broad enforcement powers.
The authority for OJK to initiate such lawsuit originates also from the enactment OJK Regulation No. 22 of 2023 concerning Consumer Protection in the Financial Industry (“OJK Regulation 22/2023”). Specifically, Article 99 (1) of the OJK Regulation 22/2023 allows OJK to file civil lawsuits for two main purposes: (i) to recover assets belonging to harmed parties from those who caused the loss, whether the assets are held directly by the liable party or by another party acting in bad faith; and/or (ii) to seek compensation from the responsible party for losses suffered by consumers and/or financial services institutions due to violations of financial services laws and regulations.
The RPOJK provides further clarity on how this authority may be exercised, outlining the procedures, potential defendants, and the handling of affected consumers. It sets out the key principles, procedural steps, and legal standing requirements for such lawsuits, and details the respective roles, rights and obligations of financial institutions and consumers.
In essence, the RPOJK positions litigation as a last-resort enforcement mechanism to recover consumer losses and reinforce consumer protection. While OJK Regulation 22/2023 primarily focuses on administrative sanctions, the RPOJK expands OJK’s enforcement options by introducing a clear legal process for court actions.
-
Key Takeaways of the RPOJK
Topics Description Scope of Lawsuits – Article 3(2) RPOJK OJK may initiate lawsuits against Financial Service Business Actors (Pelaku Usaha Jasa Keuangan or “PUJK”) and, in cases involving bad-faith, extend such lawsuits to other parties connected to consumer assets.
Specifically, this provision authorizes OJK to initiate lawsuit against any PUJK that has been licensed by OJK, as well as “other parties acting in bad faith”, for example, controlling shareholders or anyone who have misused or unlawfully controlled a consumer’s assets. This scope therefore extends beyond traditional financial institutions such as banks, insurers, pension funds, encompassing any party that improperly influences or exercise control over consumer assets.
Importantly, the decision to initiate such lawsuits falls entirely within OJK’s discretion. Civil claims are pursued based on OJK’s authority, assessment, and judgment, rather than upon requests from consumers directly involved in disputes.
Institutional Legal Standing – Article 4(1) RPOJK Proceedings initiated by OJK are on its own institutional standing, not as class actions on behalf of a group.
The RPOJK clearly stipulates that such lawsuits are filed by OJK’s in its capacity as a regulator, not representative or class lawsuits. Therefore, in practice, OJK will appear before the court as the plaintiff in its regulatory capacity, with proceedings intended to safeguard the broader interests of consumers, though they are not formally classified as “class actions” under consumer protection law.
Grounds for Lawsuit – Article 4(2)–(3) RPOJK The RPOJK clarifies that OJK may initiate a lawsuit only when an unlawful act caused material loss to consumers. It requires that any lawsuit be “based on an unlawful act that causes loss to consumers” and has been internally “assessed” where OJK must first conclude that the violation of financial regulations did cause a material harm to consumers before filing lawsuit. This approach carries significant implications for the development of Indonesian civil law doctrine, particularly in relation to the concept of perbuatan melawan hukum (unlawful act). Within Indonesian civil law, contractual claims generally described the existence of a written or oral agreement that has been breached, whilst an unlawful act claim arises independently upon the commission of an act contrary to law, morality, or societal norms, which results in harm to another party.
In the context of consumer protection, this distinction introduces a significant degree of flexibility. The dispute may not necessarily rely on the existence of a written contract or a specific contractual clause. Instead, liability may be established on the basis of an unlawful act (with further subject and compliances to the Article 1365 of the Indonesian Civil Code, which requires the existence of: (i) an unlawful act; (ii) fault or negligence; (iii) damage suffered by another party; and (iv) a causal relationship between the act and the damage).
Four Key Principles – Article 5 RPOJK The RPOJK establishes four fundamental principles guiding OJK in filing lawsuits:
- public interest (kepentingan umum);
- utility (kemanfaatan);
- legal certainty (kepastian hukum); and
- justice (keadilan).
In essence, the “public interest” principle means lawsuits serve to protect consumer rights and promote public welfare; “utility” means preventing greater losses and deterring future violations; and “justice” means ensuring affected consumers can recover their assets or damages.
Practical Process and Implications for PUJKs and Consumers
While much of the RPOJK’s litigation process is procedural, several stages have practical significance for both PUJKs and consumers:
Investigation and Coordination – Article 7 RPOJK
OJK may coordinate with external parties (e.g. prosecutors or external legal counsel) and request documents or information needed for the lawsuit from relevant entities (i.e. licensed PUJK(s), industry support institutions, associations, government agencies, or academics). OJK’s requests come with clear deadlines, and refusal or non-cooperation is subject to administrative sanctions.Identify Affected Consumers – Article 8 RPOJK
Once OJK decides to initiate lawsuit, it must compile and publicly disclose a verified list of consumers affected by the defendant’s actions. For consumers, this mechanism ensures that affected individuals are automatically represented without needing to file individually. For PUJKs, however, the public disclosure may pose reputational risks and indicate potential systemic compliance weakness, highlighting the importance of maintaining strong governance and transparent management of customer issues.Opt-out Period – Article 9 RPOJK
Once the list of affected consumers is publicly announcement, each listed consumer the right to opt out if they do not want to participate in OJK’s lawsuit. Such consumers may choose to pursue their own legal claims instead, but they forfeit any recovery from the OJK case. This mechanism centralizes consumer claims under OJK’s oversight which minimize duplicative lawsuits and ensuring only verified participants benefit from the recovery.Court Verdict and Distribution of Recovery – Article 15 RPOJK
If the court verdict relief (whole or in part), OJK will proceed with distributing compensation, potentially through a third-party administrator. Any compensation not accepted by a consumer (or for absent consumers) is held with the court or sent to a prescribed agency (e.g. Balai Harta Peninggalan). OJK must subsequently report to the court detailing the outcome, including the amounts received or declined by each consumer.
ARMA Law Commentary and Practical Insights
The draft a notable advancement in consumer protection enforcement within Indonesia’s financial sector. It affirms OJK’s authority to initiate lawsuit to recover consumer losses, guided by public-interest and legal-certainty principles. The detailed procedures, from announcing affected consumers and allowing opt-outs, to distributing compensation after judgment, aim to make the process transparent and fair.
One notable point, however, concerns the relationship between the RPOJK and existing consumer protection rules under OJK Regulation 22/2023. Under OJK Regulation 22/2023, a consumer who suffers harm from PUJK must first pursue the mandatory complaint-handling mechanism. This includes private resolution efforts, such as written communication with the PUJK, internal assessment by the PUJK, and other steps designed to resolve disputes out of court. Only when these avenues are exhausted may the consumer file a civil claim before the courts.
By contrast, the RPOJK provides OJK with broader discretion to initiate lawsuit directly against PUJK, without expressly requiring prior proceedings through pre-litigation forums. While the distinction in legal standing is clear, under POJK 22/2023, the consumer act as the claimant, whereas under the RPOJK, OJK itself serves as the plaintiff in the public interest, the coexistence of these mechanisms may raise questions about how they will operate in practice. For PUJKs, this could mean the need to anticipate possible overlaps between internal complaint-handling obligations and OJK’s supervisory or enforcement actions.
Although the regulation remains in draft form, from a practical perspective, the regulation signals OJK’s increasing scrutiny of consumer protection. PUJKs should therefore ensure that their internal complaint-handling processes, governance frameworks, and consumer-facing processes are robust and well-documented to mitigate potential regulatory and reputational risks, as OJK’s enforcement focus continues to strengthen.
Disclaimer:
This client update is the property of ARMA Law and intended for providing general information and should not be treated as legal advice, nor shall it be relied upon by any party for any circumstance. ARMA Law has no intention to provide a specific legal advice with regard to this client update.
Related Updates
Latest Updates
