Indonesia’s antitrust agency has fined 97 peer-to-peer lending companies a combined Rp755 billion ($44.6 million) after finding them guilty of coordinating interest-rate practices in a cartel scheme, according to a report by The Jakarta Post.
The Business Competition Supervisory Commission, or KPPU, said the lenders violated Article 5 of Law No. 5/1999, which prohibits monopolistic practices and unfair business competition.
In a statement, KPPU said the companies had agreed to set caps on loan interest rates and “economic benefit” at levels “far above the market’s equilibrium level”, undermining competition in one of Indonesia’s most closely watched digital finance sectors.
The commission described the decision as one of the largest competition cases it has handled, both in terms of the number of respondents and the industry’s direct impact on the public.
The case stemmed from proceedings that began last year. During an initial hearing in August 2025, KPPU investigators laid out allegations that the lenders had coordinated pricing through an industry-arranged ceiling.
The companies denied the accusations, prompting further examination before the regulator issued its ruling this week, The Jakarta Post reported.
KPPU said the lenders’ use of an interest-rate cap was not an effective consumer protection tool and instead risked serving as a mechanism for price-setting coordination among competitors.
Even if nonbinding, such a ceiling could shape expectations and pricing behaviour across the market, weakening competition, the regulator said. Local reports said 52 of the firms received the minimum Rp1 billion fine.
The Indonesian Fintech Association, or AFPI, expressed disappointment over the ruling, saying the maximum economic benefit framework adopted by its members had been based on a directive from the Financial Services Authority, known as OJK.
OJK, for its part, said it respected the KPPU decision and would continue monitoring the sector to maintain stability and public trust.
The ruling could have wider implications for Indonesia’s fintech industry, where regulators have tried to balance consumer protection with market development.
KPPU’s decision signals that even pricing measures introduced under an industry banner may face antitrust scrutiny if they appear to reduce competition.
The case highlights a growing policy tension in Southeast Asia’s digital lending market. Regulators want guardrails against predatory pricing and abusive lending, but competition watchdogs are increasingly wary when those guardrails are set collectively by industry players.
In Indonesia, that means future consumer-protection measures in fintech may need to be more clearly imposed by regulators themselves, rather than coordinated through associations, to avoid crossing into anti-competitive territory.