Constitutional Court Decision Number 273/PUU-XXIII/2025 Rules That Internet Data Quotas May No Longer Expire: New Protection for Consumers' Digital Product Rights

Introduction

The practice of forfeiting unused internet data quotas upon the expiry of a service period has become a matter of public concern because it is considered detrimental to consumers. Unused data quotas that have been fully paid for can no longer be used once the validity period expires, forcing consumers to purchase new data packages despite still having remaining data.

This issue was subsequently brought before the Constitutional Court (“MK”) for constitutional review and was decided through Constitutional Court Decision Number 273/PUU-XXIII/2025 (“Decision 273/2025”) on 23 July 2026.

In the petition for Decision 273/2025, the unilateral forfeiture of internet data quotas was challenged on the grounds that it potentially restricts public access to economic activities and employment that depend on internet services while also creating legal uncertainty for consumers regarding telecommunications services that have already been paid for.

Decision 273/2025 examined the constitutionality of Article 71 point 2 of Law Number 6 of 2023 concerning the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 2 of 2022 concerning Job Creation as Law (“Job Creation Law”), which amended Article 28 paragraph (1) of Law Number 36 of 1999 concerning Telecommunications (“Telecommunications Law”).

The petition essentially challenged the practice of telecommunications service providers forfeiting consumers’ remaining internet data quotas when the service period or package validity period expires, even though such quotas have not been fully used and have already been paid for by consumers.

Prior to Decision 273/2025, Article 28 paragraph (1) of the Telecommunications Law merely provided that telecommunications network and/or telecommunications service tariffs shall be determined by telecommunications service providers based on a formula established by the Central Government. However, the provision did not explicitly regulate the legal status of unused internet data quotas upon the expiry of the service validity period. The absence of such regulation created a legal vacuum, which, in practice, allowed telecommunications service providers to implement policies forfeiting unused internet data quotas based on the validity period of data packages in accordance with their respective business policies.

In their petition, the Petitioners argued that the provision conflicted with several provisions of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (“1945 Constitution”), including:

·      Article 28D paragraph (1), which guarantees every person’s right to recognition, guarantees, protection, and legal certainty that is just, as well as equal treatment before the law; and

·      Article 28H paragraph (4), which guarantees every person’s right to own private property and prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of property rights.

According to the Petitioners, internet data quotas that have been purchased but not yet used constitute part of consumers’ property rights and serve as an essential means of carrying out economic activities and employment. Therefore, the unilateral forfeiture of unused internet data quotas upon the expiry of the validity period potentially diminishes consumers’ property rights and fails to provide legal certainty regarding the utilization of telecommunications services that have already been paid for.

Key Points of the Decision

The Petitioners

The Petitioners were internet service users from various professional backgrounds, including online transportation workers, micro-business owners, academics, and advocates, all of whom rely on internet services as an essential component of their work and business activities.

The Petitioners argued that they had suffered actual losses as a result of the implementation of internet data validity periods, whereby unused data quotas that had already been paid for expired upon the end of the validity period despite not having been fully utilized. Consequently, they were required either to incur additional costs to purchase new internet data packages or to bear economic losses because they were unable to fully utilize services for which they had already paid.

The Petitioners’ Arguments

• The Petitioners argued that Article 71 point 2 of the Job Creation Law is ambiguous (vague norm) and grants telecommunications operators unrestricted discretion to conflate “Service Tariffs” with the “Duration of Ownership” of internet data quotas without any limiting standards established by the State.
• The practice of forfeiting internet data quotas was argued to be contrary to Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, which guarantees the right to fair legal certainty.
• Internet data quotas were argued to constitute a digital commodity and consumers’ private property with genuine economic value. Consequently, the forfeiture of unused data quotas without compensation was considered an arbitrary deprivation of private property in violation of Article 28H paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution.
• The Petitioners also compared Indonesia’s practice with that of several other jurisdictions, including Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States, France, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Ireland, where mechanisms such as data rollover, data banking, or refunds in the form of billing credits have already been implemented.

Relief Sought (Petitum)

The Petitioners requested the Constitutional Court to declare the challenged provision conditionally unconstitutional and therefore lacking binding legal force unless it is interpreted in accordance with one of the following three alternatives:

• The determination of telecommunications service tariffs and service schemes must guarantee the accumulation of unused data quotas (data rollover) that have already been paid for by consumers.
• Unused data quotas purchased by consumers must remain valid and available for use throughout the active period of the prepaid SIM card, regardless of the validity period of the data package established by the telecommunications operator.
• Unused data quotas must be converted into prepaid credit value or refunded proportionately to the consumer’s account upon the expiry of the data package validity period.

The Constitutional Court's Considerations

In its legal considerations, the Constitutional Court held that the principal issue was not the amount of telecommunications service tariffs, but rather the absence of legal protection governing the legal status of internet data quotas that have already been purchased by consumers but remain unused upon the expiry of the service period.

The Court emphasized that internet access has become an essential necessity in modern society. Internet services are no longer used merely as a means of communication but also constitute a fundamental infrastructure supporting education, employment, business activities, public services, and the exercise of various constitutional rights. Consequently, legal certainty concerning the utilization of internet data purchased by consumers forms part of the State's obligation to provide fair legal protection.

The Court further considered that telecommunications service providers are indeed entitled to determine tariffs and service schemes based on business considerations. However, such authority is not absolute and must remain subject to the constitutional principles of legal certainty, fairness, balance, and consumer protection.

According to the Court, where consumers have fully paid for internet data quotas, such quotas constitute an economic right attached to the consumer. Therefore, the legal status of unused internet data quotas cannot be left entirely to unilateral contractual arrangements established by telecommunications service providers without adequate legal safeguards.

The Court also observed that the challenged provision did not regulate the legal consequences of unused internet data quotas upon the expiry of the package validity period. This legal vacuum resulted in differing business practices among telecommunications service providers and created uncertainty for consumers regarding their rights over internet data that had already been purchased.

The Constitutional Court considered that the State should establish a legal framework that ensures a fair balance between the legitimate business interests of telecommunications operators and the constitutional rights of consumers. Accordingly, the Court held that legislative intervention is necessary to provide legal certainty regarding the treatment of unused internet data quotas.

The Constitutional Court's Decision

Based on those legal considerations, the Constitutional Court partially granted the Petitioners' application.

The Court declared that Article 28 paragraph (1) of Law Number 36 of 1999 concerning Telecommunications, as amended by Article 71 point 2 of Law Number 6 of 2023 concerning Job Creation, is conditionally unconstitutional and therefore has no binding legal force unless interpreted to mean that:

The determination of telecommunications service tariffs by telecommunications service providers must also regulate the legal treatment of unused internet data quotas in a manner that provides fair legal protection to consumers in accordance with the principles of legal certainty and consumer protection guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution.

The Constitutional Court did not specifically require telecommunications operators to implement one particular mechanism, such as data rollover, data banking, or cash refunds. Instead, the Court left the selection of the appropriate mechanism to the legislator and the Government, provided that the resulting regulatory framework guarantees fair legal protection for consumers and eliminates legal uncertainty regarding unused internet data quotas.

The Court also instructed the House of Representatives (DPR) and the Government to promptly formulate the necessary legislative or regulatory amendments to implement the constitutional interpretation established in the judgment.

Practical Implications

The Constitutional Court's decision introduces a new legal standard for the regulation of telecommunications services in Indonesia. Following this decision, the Government and the House of Representatives (DPR) are required to establish a regulatory framework that provides clear legal protection for consumers with respect to unused internet data quotas.

For telecommunications service providers, this decision does not immediately invalidate the existing validity-period system for internet data packages. However, service providers will be required to adjust their business policies once the implementing regulations are enacted. Such adjustments may include mechanisms governing the treatment of unused internet data quotas in a manner that complies with the constitutional principles established by the Constitutional Court.

For consumers, the decision provides stronger legal protection by recognizing that internet data quotas that have been purchased may no longer be treated solely as a contractual matter determined unilaterally by telecommunications operators. Instead, the legal treatment of unused internet data quotas must be regulated within a framework that guarantees fairness, legal certainty, and adequate consumer protection.

Until the implementing regulations are issued, telecommunications service providers may continue to apply their existing policies, provided that such policies remain consistent with the applicable laws and regulations. Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court's interpretation serves as a constitutional guideline for future legislative and regulatory developments concerning telecommunications services.

Recommendations

For Consumers

• Review the terms and conditions governing internet data packages offered by telecommunications service providers, particularly those relating to the validity period and the treatment of unused internet data quotas.
• Monitor future legislative and regulatory developments issued by the Government and the Financial Services Authority or other relevant authorities concerning the implementation of the Constitutional Court's decision.
• Retain transaction records and proof of purchase for internet data packages, as such documents may be relevant in the event of future disputes regarding consumer rights.

For Telecommunications Service Providers

• Review and evaluate existing business policies governing the validity period and forfeiture of internet data quotas to ensure alignment with the constitutional principles established by Decision Number 273/PUU-XXIII/2025.
• Prepare internal policies and technical systems that can accommodate future regulatory requirements regarding the treatment of unused internet data quotas.
• Enhance transparency by clearly informing consumers of their rights and obligations relating to internet data packages and any applicable limitations on their use.

Closing

Through Decision Number 273/PUU-XXIII/2025, the Constitutional Court reaffirmed that consumer protection constitutes an integral part of the constitutional guarantee of legal certainty. The Court emphasized that although telecommunications service providers retain the authority to determine tariffs and business schemes, such authority must be exercised within a legal framework that protects consumers' constitutional rights.

Rather than mandating a specific commercial model, the Constitutional Court required the establishment of a regulatory framework that ensures fair legal treatment of unused internet data quotas. Consequently, the Government and the House of Representatives are expected to formulate implementing regulations that balance consumer protection with the legitimate interests of telecommunications service providers.

The decision represents an important development in Indonesia's digital consumer protection regime by encouraging greater legal certainty, transparency, and fairness in the provision of telecommunications services while recognizing the increasingly essential role of internet access in modern economic and social life.