AdaKami and 96 other Indonesian lenders fined Rp755B for a rate-fixing cartel

In March 2026, Indonesia's Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) ruled in Case No. 05/KPPU-I/2025 that 97 peer-to-peer lending companies had violated Article 5 of Law No. 5/1999 by agreeing to fix prices. The mechanism was an industry-wide ceiling on loan interest rates and 'economic benefit' adopted through the sector's trade association, AFPI. Hearings opened on August 14, 2025; the panel found an agreement on the determination of interest rates and/or economic benefits had been made.

KPPU's reasoning cut against the industry's consumer-protection framing: a ceiling set 'far above the market's equilibrium level' anchors expectations and pushes every lender's pricing toward the same aligned maximum. Fines totaled Rp755 billion (about $44.6 million) — AdaKami Rp102.3 billion, AsetKu Rp100.9 billion, Kredit Pintar Rp93.6 billion, and 52 of the 97 at the Rp1 billion minimum — one of the largest competition cases KPPU has handled.

The industry's defense exposed the trap it had built for itself. AFPI chairman Entjik S. Djafar said the maximum economic benefit limit had been guidance from the Financial Services Authority (OJK) to protect consumers from predatory, illegal lending — and that 'all members do not accept this decision,' with most planning to appeal. OJK itself publicly respected the ruling and pledged continued supervision of the sector.

Rp755 billion ($44.6M) across 97 lenders: AdaKami Rp102.3B, AsetKu Rp100.9B, Kredit Pintar Rp93.6B; 52 firms got the Rp1B minimum. Appeals pending.

Pricing moved out of the market and into the association: when 97 competing lenders calibrate their rates to a common ceiling, the ceiling becomes a shared price signal rather than a regulation.

KPPU's central finding was that a cap set far above equilibrium does not protect consumers — it operates like a floor, letting every lender converge on the maximum allowed charge.

The industry assumed that a consumer-protection rationale and claimed regulatory guidance would immunize it; competition law analysis starts from the fact of agreement, not the motive behind it.

An association-administered framework blurred the line between standard-setting and cartel coordination precisely because membership spanned the entire market.

A rate cap set by your own trade association is still price fixing. Consumer-protection intent does not legalize collective pricing; competition law asks who agreed, not why.

AFPI said the majority of its members would appeal the ruling, arguing no collusion was proven during the trial and that the cap followed OJK's earlier guidance against illegal lenders charging very high rates. OJK said it respected the KPPU decision and would keep pushing platforms on governance, risk management and consumer protection. The ruling signals that in Indonesian fintech, consumer-protection measures must be imposed by the regulator itself rather than collectively agreed among competitors.