Introduction

For about two decades, attempts from parties seeking compensation for damages under violation of Article 23 through the KPPU had been unsuccessful. However, in a February 2026 ruling (Decision No. 04/KPPU-L/2025), the Indonesian Competition Commission (KPPU) awarded damages sought under this framework, making this decision the first successful damages awarded since the 2000s for Article 23 enforcement. The decision involved assessments on the misuse of confidential business information and collusion to obstruct a competitor. This development signals that companies can now pursue meaningful compensation through the KPPU for anticompetitive conduct.

This case stems from a report of alleged violation of Articles 23 and 24 of the Indonesian Competition law (Law No. 5 of 1999, as amended) by a Testing, Inspection, and Certification (TIC) laboratory (the claimant) against a competing TIC laboratory (first defendant) and two individuals—one of whom was a former executive of the claimant.

KPPU found the three defendants liable for:

• Article 23: Soliciting and misusing a competitor’s competitively sensitive information; and
• Article 24: Colluding to obstruct the competitor’s production and/or marketing.

The KPPU imposed administrative fines totalling IDR 6.7 billion (±USD394K) payable to the state treasury and awarded IDR 6.5 billion (±USD382K) in damages to the claimant.

What Happened

It is alleged that while still employed by the claimant, one of the individual defendants who held an executive position in the claimant at the time, orchestrated a scheme to divert business to a newly formed competing laboratory (i.e., the first defendant) through various means, namely:

1. making false announcement to clients that the claimant had changed its name to the new defendant company, causing customers to shift their business
2. diverting the claimant’s employees, equipment, and confidential client information to the first defendant
3. deliberately allowing the claimant’s accreditation to lapse

How Damages Were Calculated and Aggravating Factor

Although the claimant sought damages amounting to IDR 13 billion, KPPU awarded only IDR 6.5 billion—limited to losses that could be verified through financial records and causally linked to specific wrongful acts (the false name-change announcement, asset seizure, and accreditation expiry). The KPPU adopted a gross profit-based calculation prepared by an accounting expert as the most reasonable measure of loss.

The KPPU noted that the three defendants never presented themselves during the proceedings, which served as an aggravating factor in determining the administrative fines. However, as with the previous cases of KPPU, the clarity on the basis of calculation for the administrative fines remains unclear in the decision.

Key Takeaways

This decision reflects the current KPPU leadership’s direction that seeking compensation through the KPPU is a viable path, particularly where financial losses are properly documented and can be substantiated. Companies should take heightened care around the movement of personnel and protection of confidential information and trade secrets, as these areas now carry meaningful enforcement risk under Indonesian Competition Law.

While the decision provides useful guidance on the calculation of damages, the methodology underpinning the KPPU’s administrative fine determination remains opaque. Until greater transparency emerges from future decisions, companies should be aware that the quantum of administrative fines cannot be reliably predicted in advance of proceedings.