Correspondence: kintanprameswar[email protected]npad.ac.id

services, making it easier for them to fulfill their daily needs. With this convenience comes

increasingly complex problems for consumers. The Ministry of Trade received 6,018 complaints from

consumers during 2023. (MoT, 2024), while the National Consumer Protection Agency (BPKN)

recorded 929 complaints in the same period (BPKN, n.d.). This data shows the importance of

consumer protection in facing increasingly complex challenges amid dynamic economic

development. Consumer rights, which are part of human rights, must be prioritized so that consumers

are not harmed and business actors are responsible for the goods and services they provide (Mayana

et al., 2020, p. 135).

BaChri, 2022, p. 28).

(Consumer Protection Law) provides several mechanisms for consumers to fight for their rights.

Consumers can complain directly to businesses or take their problems to the Consumer Dispute

Resolution Agency (BPSK). BPSK is tasked with resolving disputes between consumers and

businesses through mediation, conciliation, or arbitration. If the settlement through BPSK is not

satisfactory, consumers have the right to bring the dispute to court. With this dispute resolution

mechanism, it is hoped that consumer rights can be protected and business actors can be more

responsible in providing safe services in accordance with applicable standards. (Rahmi Rimanda,

2019, p. 19).

transportation companies and passengers: if passengers suffer losses due to the company's

negligence, then the company is obliged to compensate for these losses to restore disturbed

conditions for consumers.

clauses, according to the Consumer Protection Law, are provisions or conditions that have been

predetermined by the company and accepted by consumers.

clauses have the characteristics of agreements prepared by parties with more power. Consumers are

not involved in determining the agreement's contents, it is compiled in a written and mass format,

and consumers accept its contents involuntarily because of their needs. (Zulham, 2013, p. 67). Using

exoneration clause is a form of unilateral agreement that favours businesses by limiting or relieving

them of liability, including limitations on the amount of compensation and the time to file a claim.

(Suwandono et al., 2024, p. 89).

consumers (Zulham, 2013, p. 12). Consumers often have no choice but to accept these standard

clauses to obtain the goods or services they need, even though the provisions are more favourable to

business actors and detrimental to consumers. This contradicts the principle of freedom of contract,

which ideally can only be realized if both parties have a balanced bargaining position. (Yuanitasari &

Kusmayanti, 2019).

Indah Otobus Company (PO) bus service, experienced the loss of valuables during a trip from

Wonosobo to Ciputat. Through his personal Twitter (X) account, @Widino, he shared his experience.

Widino Arnoldy always kept an eye on his bag, but his belongings still went missing after the trip

(Dian, 2023).

is evidence to suggest that Widino was not negligent in guarding his luggage. He actively guarded his

bag during the trip from Wonosobo to Ciputat, but his belongings remained missing. Upon realizing

the loss, Widino immediately contacted Rosalia Indah's customer service to report the incident.

Although the company refused to take responsibility for the loss, Widino Arnoldy also took the step

of sharing the experience through his personal Twitter account, @Widino, in hopes of garnering a

Job Creation (LLAJ Law). (Rahayu & Setiawan, 2024). Article 194 Paragraph (2) of the LLAJ Law states

that, "The carrier shall not be liable for the loss of the Passenger's luggage, unless the Passenger can

prove that the loss was caused by the fault or negligence of the carrier."

The article states that the

carrier is not liable for the loss of the passenger's goods unless evidence of the carrier's fault is found.

consumers only need to prove their losses. Victims of goods theft on PO Rosalia Indah buses have not

been adequately compensated, pointing to the need for more effective consumer protection

measures.

application in real-world contexts (Suteki & Galang, 2018). By focusing on the legal norms and

principles that underlie consumer protection laws, this method helps identify gaps or inconsistencies

in the regulatory framework, providing a comprehensive understanding of how these laws are

enforced in practice.

No. 8/1999 on Consumer Protection and Law No. 22/2009 on Road Traffic and Transportation, as

systematically categorized and compared to identify patterns or contradictions in the application of

exoneration clauses. Legal hermeneutics were employed to interpret the texts and determine

whether the clauses in question complied with the existing legal framework. To ensure the validity of

the data, cross-referencing between various sources, including academic papers, court rulings, and

statutory texts, was conducted to triangulate findings. This process helped confirm the consistency of

the legal interpretation and ensured that the data used was reliable and accurate.

reasoning and consistently applying legal principles throughout the study. Peer-reviewed sources

and verified legal documents were used to strengthen the argumentation, ensuring that the

conclusions drawn are grounded in well-supported legal evidence

determined unilaterally by one party, which is generally the stronger party, which in this case is PO

Rosalia Indah. Consumers only have the option to accept or reject the agreement without being able

to negotiate the terms.

From the perspective of consumer protection law, standard agreements must fulfill the

principles of consumer protection as stipulated in the Consumer Protection Law. These principles

include good faith, information disclosure, and balance of rights and obligations. Based on Article 18

of the Consumer Protection Law, business actors are prohibited from including standard clauses

whose contents, among others, transfer the responsibility of the business actor, reduce or eliminate

consumer rights, and state that consumers are subject to new, additional, further regulations, which

in the relationship between business actors and consumers.

This is in line with the provisions in Article 1320 of the Civil Code regarding the validity of

agreements, especially regarding objective requirements. In the objective requirement, as stated in

the Civil Code, an agreement must be made on a cause that is not prohibited. As a legal consequence

of violating the objective requirement, the agreement will be considered null and void. Therefore, it

is necessary to first analyze whether the standard agreement provided by PO Rosalia Indah is an

exoneration clause or limited liability.

In Widino Arnoldy's case with PO Rosalia Indah, it appears that the passenger lost the goods

due to theft even though it was well guarded by the owner. Based on Article 192 paragraph (4) of the

Rosalia Indah is obliged to provide fair compensation to Widino Arnoldy.

The relationship between Article 192 paragraph (4) of the LLAJ Law and the principle of

consumer protection shows that although the LLAJ Law stipulates that the carrier is not liable unless

negligence is proven, the Consumer Protection Law strengthens the rights of consumers by reversing

the burden of proof to the business actor. In this case, Widino Arnoldy must prove that the loss of his

goods occurred while in the custody of PO Rosalia Indah. After that, PO Rosalia Indah is responsible

for proving the absence of their negligence and providing fair compensation if they cannot do so.

These stages reflect the principles of justice and legal certainty set out in consumer protection law.

First of all, to establish that the consumer was not negligent, it is important to prove that the

consumer took reasonable precautions, such as taking good care of their goods while in their

(CCTV), which is a camera system used for monitoring, or a safe deposit box, which is a storage box

for valuables in the transportation services it provides. After the case occurred, the new business

actors installed CCTV and safe deposit boxes on each bus owned by the company to restore the level

of consumer confidence. Before the theft of the goods occurred, the company did not provide any

security support facilities as mentioned above. However, this cannot be fully referred to as a form of

liability, because the affected consumers still suffered losses due to this negligence, which could have

been prevented if the company had sought such prevention without having to wait for the theft case

to occur first.

Based on the laws and regulations in the road traffic and transportation sector, there is no

These obligations are in line with Article 7 letters a, c, and d of the Consumer Protection Law

which stipulates that there are several obligations that must be fulfilled by business actors. First,

business actors must act in good faith in carrying out their business activities. This obligation means

that every action taken in the business process must be based on good intentions and transparency.

Second, business actors must treat or serve consumers correctly, honestly, and non-discriminatorily.

This fair and honest treatment is important to maintain consumer trust and ensure that every

principles of consumer protection. By implementing the right systems and procedures, businesses

can ensure that all aspects, from the production process to customer service, run following

established standards, thus not only fulfilling legal obligations but also building a good reputation in

the eyes of consumers.

Widino Arnoldy's case shows that PO Rosalia Indah failed to fulfill its obligation to keep

passengers' goods safe. Despite Widino Arnoldy's efforts to safeguard his goods, the loss of the goods

raises questions about PO Rosalia Indah's possible negligence in securing passenger goods from theft

during the journey. In addition, if PO Rosalia Indah had promised the safety of the goods but did not

fulfill it, this could be categorized as a default. Although there is no negligence on the part of the

business actor, in the context of the liability of business actors within the scope of consumer

that are not labeled as luggage, in the event of damage, mix-up or loss in the fleet are not the

responsibility of Rosalia Indah."

This raises the question of whether or not this clause is classified as an exoneration clause.

Although the company has established a form of liability for luggage and labelled goods in its

possession, PO Rosalia Indah does not take responsibility for goods in possession of passengers.

Therefore, it is important to determine whether the clause meets applicable legal standards,

especially in Indonesia's consumer protection context.

An exoneration clause is part of a contractual agreement that often limits or eliminates one

party's liability for losses or damages incurred during the performance of the contract. In Indonesian

based on the principles of fairness and protection of consumers, considering the position of

consumers who tend to be weaker legally and economically. Unauthorized exoneration clauses can

threaten the rights of consumers and harm their interests in commercial transactions. Therefore,

strict application of this rule is important to ensure that consumers are adequately protected in every

business interaction in Indonesia.

The PO Rosalia Indah case shows that there is an application of an exoneration clause in their

standard agreement, where the company further confirms the content of the clause by providing a

statement that "loss of nonbaggage and nonlabeled goods is not the responsibility of the company".

(Deny, 2023). The company's regulations strictly limit PO Rosalia Indah's liability to luggage and

a clause that attempts to waive responsibility for the loss of non-baggage and non-labeled items could

be considered in violation of this provision.

The implications of such violations are clear, namely clauses that are not in accordance with

the Consumer Protection Law are declared null and void based on Article 18 paragraph (2) of the

Consumer Protection Law. This confirms that consumers still have the right to protection and

compensation for losses arising from the negligence or misconduct of business actors, despite

attempts to override such responsibility through agreements. Clauses that attempt to eliminate or

limit the liability of business actors for consumer losses are considered invalid and not legally binding.

Thus, strict enforcement of exoneration clauses such as those contained in PO Rosalia Indah's

standardized agreements is essential to ensure consumer protection and fairness in commercial

rights are respected and protected.

In addition, consistent law enforcement can increase consumer confidence in Indonesia's

legal system and consumer protection mechanisms. Consumers will feel safer and more protected

when they know that institutions and regulations are in place to protect their rights. This may also

encourage more consumers to report violations and claim their rights, which will ultimately

strengthen the implementation of consumer protection law as a whole.

In this context, removing the exoneration clause in PO Rosalia Indah's standard agreement is

a matter of legal compliance and an important step to ensure that consumers get the protection they

need and deserve. Moreover, in this case, consumers did not merely experience the loss of goods but

goods and/or services received are not in accordance with the agreement or not as it should be, then

consumers also have other rights, namely to obtain advocacy, protection, and efforts to resolve

consumer protection disputes properly.

Dispute resolution efforts can generally be resolved through court (litigation) or out-of-court

(non-litigation) as stipulated in Article 45 and Article 47 of the Consumer Protection Law. The

litigation process in court often has several significant shortcomings. One of them is that it takes a

involved. For this reason, many consumers choose not to assert their rights that should be protected,

even though they have clearly been harmed.

Complex procedures are also a challenge in litigation. Courts have rules and procedures that

must be followed carefully. Consumers who do not have sufficient legal knowledge often find it

difficult to understand and follow these procedures. This can lead to injustice, especially for

consumers who cannot access adequate legal assistance. Therefore, the Consumer Protection Law

accommodates dispute resolution through non-litigation resolution, namely the BPSK institution.

For consumer protection, there is a mechanism for peaceful dispute resolution between the

parties through BPSK. BPSK is an institution established under the Consumer Protection Law and is

tasked with handling and resolving disputes between consumers and business actors outside of court.

relationship between the two parties. Therefore, before a consumer is entitled to compensation, he

or she must show that he or she was not negligent and that the business actor caused the harm

suffered. Based on Article 28 of the Consumer Protection Law, this process follows the principle of

reverse proof, where the consumer does not need to prove the fault of the business actor. Instead, the

business actor must prove that he/she is innocent or not responsible for the loss (Heriyanti, 2019).

This principle aligns with the presumption of negligence and responsibility with reverse

proof. This means that with the reverse burden of proof, negligence no longer needs to be proven by

the consumer. Under this doctrine, the burden of proof is on the defendant, whether the defendant

was negligent or not. This principle states that the defendant is always responsible until he can prove

required to prove their innocence in the event of a dispute.

BPSK acts as a neutral arbiter, helping both parties reach a fair and satisfactory agreement. In

addition, it can be seen that BPSK is not only tasked with resolving consumer disputes but includes

providing consultation to consumers regarding their rights and ways to protect themselves from

unfair business practices, supervising the inclusion of standard clauses, and as a place for consumers

complaints about violations of consumer protection provisions. (Miru & Yodo, 2014).

In the Consumer Protection Law, there are provisions stipulating that BPSK has the authority

to impose administrative sanctions on business actors who violate the provisions of the regulation.

With dispute resolution mechanisms through BPSK and assistance through other institutions,

consumers' rights to obtain justice and compensation for losses can be protected more effectively.

This mechanism provides an avenue for consumers to claim their rights and real protection and

greater accessibility in resolving disputes. BPSK, with its binding decisions, ensures that consumers

can obtain fair compensation without going through lengthy and expensive litigation. In addition,

BPSK also plays an educative role by providing information to consumers about their rights and

available dispute resolution procedures.

The existence of BPSK and other supporting institutions such as BPKN and LPKSM also

encourage business actors to be more responsible and transparent in running their businesses.

Business actors must ensure that the products and services they offer meet the established standards