An Analysis of Legal Protection for Consumers in Relation to Predatory Pricing Practices by PT Conch South Kalimantan Cement: A Case Study of Supreme Court Decision No. 951 K/Pdt.Sus-KPPU/2021
Abstract
This study analyzes the legal protection afforded to consumers in relation to predatory pricing practices carried out by PT Conch South Kalimantan Cement, as examined in Supreme Court Decision No. 951 K/Pdt.Sus-KPPU/2021. Predatory pricing as an unfair pricing strategy not only disrupts fair business competition but also creates long-term negative effects for consumers, including reduced market choices, the risk of monopolization, and the loss of their rights to fair prices, product quality, and sustainable supply. The research employs a normative juridical method with a case approach, drawing upon judicial decisions, Law No. 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition, and relevant consumer protection regulations. The findings indicate that PT Conch’s conduct meets the legal criteria for predatory pricing, resulting in adverse impacts on market dynamics and consumer welfare. The Supreme Court’s ruling upholds KPPU’s findings and underscores the role of competition law enforcement as an indirect mechanism for consumer protection. This study concludes that safeguarding consumers from predatory pricing requires not only price monitoring but also consistent enforcement of competition law to ensure a healthy, competitive market structure that supports the fulfillment of consumer rights.
References
Adam, R. (2023). Predatory pricing for e-commerce businesses from a business competition law perspective. Journal of Law and Sustainable Development, 11(8), e1438–e1438.
Amalia, L. T., Widyawati, R. L., Kusuma, A., & Rosyadi, A. N. (2024). Dumping Practices on Market Balance: A Review of Business Competition in E-Commerce. Journal of Law, Politic and Humanities, 4(3), 172–179.
Anggraini, A. M. T., Sabirin, A., & Himawan, F. (2025). Antitrust in Practice: Case-Based Comparative Analysis of Predatory Pricing Enforcement in Indonesia and the United States. Padjadjaran Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (Journal of Law), 12(3), 1.
Ariska, N. A. (2024). Pendekatan Rule of Reason Atas Penetapan Harga Semen (Studi Perkara Putusan PT. Semen Conch South Kalimantan Cement Dalam Penjualan Semen di Wilayah Kalimantan Selatan). Journal of Islamic Business Law, 8(4), 102–124.
Fathimah, F. K., Rahma, A. S., & Munir, M. M. (2024). Predatory Pricing Practices on E-Commerce from an Islamic Perspective. International Journal Humanities Perspective, 1, 19–24.
Fletcher, A., Crawford, G. S., Crémer, J., Dinielli, D., Heidhues, P., Luca, M., Salz, T., Schnitzer, M., Morton, F. M. S., & Seim, K. (2023). Consumer protection for online markets and large digital platforms. Yale J. on Reg., 40, 875.
Ghifari, N., Murwaji, T., & Harrieti, N. (2025). Legal Construction of Rule of Reason Approach to Predatory Pricing in Digital Business. Awang Long Law Review, 7(2), 256–267.
Grochowski, M. F., Jablonowska, A. A., Lagioia, F., & Sartor, G. (2022). Algorithmic price discrimination and consumer protection: a digital arms race? Technology and Regulation, 2022, 36–47.
Gulati, B., & Puri, V. (2022). Predation or Competition: Demystifying the Dilemma in Platform Markets. Competition Commission of India Journal on Competition Law and Policy, 167–194.
Hancock, T., Adams, F. G., Breazeale, M., Lueg, J. E., & Shanahan, K. J. (2022). Beware the predatory shopper: exploring social vigilantism and proactivity in the exploitation of online pricing mistakes. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 39(7), 744–755.
Hasbullah, M. A. (2022). Linking Anti-trust laws with industrial development: Highlighting the prevalence of Anti-trust laws within the Indonesian manufacturing sector. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 17(1), 274–286.
Heidary, K., Custers, B., Pluut, H., & van der Rest, J.-P. (2022). A qualitative investigation of company perspectives on online price discrimination. Computer Law & Security Review, 46, 105734.
Hutchinson, C. S., & Treščáková, D. (2022). The challenges of personalized pricing to competition and personal data protection law. European Competition Journal, 18(1), 105–128.
Kamraju, M. (2025). Corporate pricing strategies and consumer welfare: Analyzing ethical, economic, and regulatory implications. ASEAN Journal of Economic and Economic Education, 4(1), 41–48.
Kurlillah, A., Hisan, S., & Tamam, B. (2024). Predatory Pricing in Buying and Selling Imported Products in E-Commerce According to the Perspective of Business Competition Law and Muamalah Fiqh. Syarah: Jurnal Hukum Islam Dan Ekonomi, 13(1), 110–134.
Leslie, C. R. (2023a). False Analogies to Predatory Pricing. U. Pa. L. Rev., 172, 329.
Leslie, C. R. (2023b). Predatory Pricing Algorithms. NYUL Rev., 98, 49.
Li, Q., Philipsen, N., & Cauffman, C. (2023). AI-enabled price discrimination as an abuse of dominance: a law and economics analysis. China-EU Law Journal, 9(1), 51–72.
MacKay, A., & Weinstein, S. N. (2022). Dynamic pricing algorithms, consumer harm, and regulatory response. Wash. UL Rev., 100, 111.
Mandrescu, D. (2022). Abusive pricing practices by online platforms: a framework review of Article 102 TFEU for future cases. Journal of Antitrust Enforcement, 10(3), 469–517.
Marten, R. (2025). A Review of Problems Arising in the Enforcement of Business Competition Laws. Legal Frontier, 1(1), 26–33.
Martin, S. (2024). Akibat Hukum Penerapan Jual Rugi Sebagai Strategi Penetapan Harga Yang Dilakukan Oleh PT. Conch South Kalimantan Cement Atas Penjualan Semen di Wilayah Kalimantan Selatan (Studi Putusan KPPU Nomor: 03/KPPU-L/2020). Journal of Private and Economic Law, 4(1), 184–217.
Murniati, R. (2023). The Characteristics of Predatory Pricing Violations According to Competition Laws in Indonesia. 3rd Universitas Lampung International Conference on Social Sciences (ULICoSS 2022), 60–68.
Pandey, A. R. (2023). Entry Barrier Analysis in Signal Jamming Predatory Pricing. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(11), 637–644.
Puisto, A., & Alavi, H. (2025). Abuse of Dominant Market Position by Predatory Pricing; The Valio Case. Hasanuddin Law Review, 1(1), 24–37.
Puruhito, M. A. S., & Anisah, S. (2024). The Negative Impact of Predatory Pricing Practice to Fair Competition (The Study of KPPU Decision Number 03/KPPU-L/2020). Journal of Private and Commercial Law, 1(1), 66–88.
Putra, W. B., Anggriawan, T. P., & Purwanto, A. M. D. C. (2023). Akibat Hukum Praktik Jual Rugi Semen Conch Dalam Persaingan Usaha Industri Semen di Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum, Politik Dan Ilmu Sosial, 2(3), 71–88.
Qizhi, Z. (2024). Exploration on the protection of consumer rights and interests in big data price discrimination. International Journal of Frontiers in Sociology, 6(4).
Rahmalia, Y. S. (2023). Tinjauan Yuridis Praktik Persaingan Tidak Sehat (Predatory Pricing) Terhadap Kasus PT. Conch South Kalimantan Cement (Conch). Jurnal Ilmiah Wahana Pendidikan, 9(14), 751–764.
Spann, M., Bertini, M., Koenigsberg, O., Zeithammer, R., Aparicio, D., Chen, Y., Fantini, F., Jin, G. Z., Morwitz, V., & Popkowski Leszczyc, P. T. L. (2024). Algorithmic pricing: Implications for consumers, managers, and regulators. NBER Working Paper, (w32540).
Vickers, J. (2025). Competition policy and the consumer welfare standard. Journal of Antitrust Enforcement, 13(1), 6–16.
Zaid, Z. (2022). The Unicorn Is a Myth No More: A Ratio Decidendi Analysis on First Official Predatory Pricing Case in Indonesia. Jurnal Penegakan Hukum dan Keadilan, 3(1), 48–59.
Zaid, Z., Gustiyani, R., & Kirana, A. H. (2022). Can An Anti-Dumping Policy Be Substituted for Predatory Pricing? AL-MANHAJ: Jurnal Hukum Dan Pranata Sosial Islam, 4(2), 179–188.
Copyright (c) 2026 International Journal of Science and Society
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
.png)
.jpg)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
1.png)
.jpg)
-modified.png)
-modified.png)
-modified.png)
