Filemon Fridolino Ngebos, Maria Fransiska Owa da Santo, Ernesta Uba Wohon

Analisis Hukum Persaingan Usaha atas Strategi Gratis Ongkir di Platform E-Commerce Indonesia

Introduction

Analisis hukum persaingan usaha atas strategi gratis ongkir di platform e-commerce indonesia. Mengkaji strategi gratis ongkir e-commerce di Indonesia dari perspektif hukum persaingan usaha. Temukan analisis potensi posisi dominan kolektif & implikasinya pada pasar e-commerce.

Abstract

Perkembangan pesat industri e-commerce di Indonesia didorong oleh penetrasi internet, kemajuan teknologi pembayaran digital, dan masuknya investasi asing. Lima perusahaan besar, yaitu Tokopedia, Shopee, Lazada, Blibli, dan Bukalapak, menerapkan strategi pemasaran agresif seperti subsidi ongkos kirim, cashback, dan diskon besar-besaran. Praktik ini efektif menarik konsumen namun menimbulkan hambatan masuk bagi pelaku usaha baru dan berpotensi menciptakan posisi dominan secara kolektif. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis apakah strategi pemasaran agresif tersebut dapat dikualifikasikan sebagai bentuk posisi dominan yang dilarang dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 tentang Larangan Praktik Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah penelitian hukum normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan dan konseptual, melalui analisis bahan hukum primer dan sekunder. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa meskipun tidak ada satu pun perusahaan yang secara individual menguasai lebih dari 50% pangsa pasar, gabungan lima perusahaan tersebut menguasai lebih dari 97% pangsa pasar e-commerce di Indonesia. Kesamaan strategi promosi yang mengandalkan kekuatan modal besar menyebabkan hambatan signifikan bagi pesaing baru, sehingga menciptakan posisi dominan secara kolektif. Strategi pemasaran agresif ini berpotensi menurunkan tingkat persaingan, membatasi inovasi, dan mengurangi pilihan konsumen dalam jangka panjang. Oleh karena itu, diperlukan pengawasan dan regulasi yang lebih tegas untuk menciptakan persaingan usaha yang sehat dan berkelanjutan di sektor e-commerce Indonesia.

Review

The article, "Analisis Hukum Persaingan Usaha atas Strategi Gratis Ongkir di Platform E-Commerce Indonesia," delves into a highly relevant and pressing issue concerning competition law in Indonesia's burgeoning e-commerce sector. The study meticulously examines the widespread adoption of aggressive marketing strategies, particularly "gratis ongkir" (free shipping), by the five leading e-commerce platforms. The central objective is to determine whether these practices could be classified as a prohibited dominant position under Law No. 5 of 1999. Employing a normative legal research methodology, the paper concludes that despite no single company holding an individual dominant market share, the collective actions of these five players, which control over 97% of the market, effectively establish a collective dominant position that creates substantial barriers to entry for new competitors. This research offers a critical contribution by spotlighting the often-underestimated challenge of "collective dominant position" within digital markets, moving beyond a sole focus on individual market share percentages. It effectively articulates how the uniformity of capital-intensive promotional strategies, such as extensive shipping subsidies, can inadvertently suppress competition, hinder innovation, and diminish consumer choice over the long term, despite their immediate benefits to consumers. The study's clear call for more robust supervision and regulation is particularly pertinent, providing a strong legal and conceptual framework for competition authorities and policymakers to re-evaluate existing regulatory approaches and ensure a more equitable and sustainable competitive landscape. While the abstract provides a compelling summary, a deeper dive in the full paper could further explore the specific legal interpretations and evidentiary standards applied to classify the collective market share as a "dominant position" under Indonesian law, potentially drawing comparative insights from other jurisdictions. Additionally, a more granular analysis of the specific mechanisms through which these strategies stifle innovation, beyond merely limiting choices, would enrich the discussion. Nevertheless, the article effectively identifies a crucial legal and economic challenge, providing valuable insights for scholars, regulators, and industry stakeholders navigating the complexities of digital market regulation and advancing the discourse on competition law in the digital economy.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.