JOSR: Journal of Social Research
November 2022, 1 (12), 642-658
p-ISSN: 2827-9832 e-ISSN: 2828-335x
Available online at http:// https://ijsr.internationaljournallabs.com/index.php/ijsr
http://ijsr.internationaljournallabs.com/index.php/ijsr
Risk of GoTo Company's Big Data Monopoly Reviewed from the Anti-
Monopoly Law
Valencia Gustin, Helza Nova Lita, Aam Suryamah
Padjadjaran University
valencia19001@mail.unpad.ac.id
Abstract (Indonesia)
Received:
Revised :
Accepted:
November 18,
2022
November 20,
2022
November 22,
2022
Latar Belakang: Konvergensi era digital akibat pengaruh
perkembangan globalisasi membawa kesadaran akan nilai
ekonomi data untuk keperluan bisnis. Kegiatan bisnis yang
dilakukan di era digital cenderung menggunakan data
sebagai bahan kajian riset pasar, termasuk dalam
menentukan kebijakan perusahaan di masa depan. Sebagai
dua perusahaan yang bergerak di pasar digital, Gojek dan
Tokopedia memiliki kontrol yang besar atas ragam data
konsumennya sehingga penguasaan data menjadi faktor
dominan di keduanya.
Tujuan: Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk membahas
bagaimana pengaturan hukum di Indonesia mengenai praktik
monopoli data sebagai bentuk persaingan usaha yang tidak
sehat dan apakah kegiatan merger antara Gojek dan
Tokopedia yang dapat menimbulkan potensi monopoli data
dapat dibenarkan menurut Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun
1999 tentang Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha dengan Baik.
Metode: Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian normatif yang
dilakukan dengan berfokus pada kajian bahan um huk
primer, sekunder, dan tersier.
Hasil: Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa saat ini belum
ada pengawasan yang ketat dan pembatasan kontrol data dari
perusahaan GoTo dan masih termasuk dalam ranah abu-abu
untuk disimpulkan sebagai tindakan monopoli menurut UU
Nomor 5 Tahun 1999.
Kesimpulan: Di Indonesia, praktik monopoli data saat ini
masih diatur dengan mengacu pada Undang-Undang Nomor
5 Tahun 1999 tentang Larangan Praktik Monopoli dan
Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat. Menurut ketentuan tersebut,
monopoli terjadi dan dilarang ketika penguasaan data
kemudian dapat menimbulkan persaingan usaha tidak sehat
di pasar, adanya pengendalian harga, serta mencegah pelaku
usaha lain masuk dan bersaing di pasar. Alhasil, penguasaan
Big Data membawa pelaku usaha memiliki dominasi penuh
Valencia Gustin, Helza Nova Lita, Aam Suryamah / JOSR: Journal of Social Research, 1(12),
642-658
Risk of GoTo Company's Big Data Monopoly Reviewed from the Anti-Monopoly Law
643
di pasar. Jika hal ini terbukti terjadi, maka sesuai dengan
ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan, pelaku usaha
dapat diancam dengan sanksi pidana denda dan pidana
penjara sesuai dengan kerugian yang ditimbulkannya.
Kata Kunci: Data, GoTo, Monopoli, Persaingan Usaha
Abstract (English)
Background: The convergence of the digital era due to the
influence of globalization developments brings awareness
of economic value to data for business purposes. Business
activities carried out in the digital era tend to use data as
material for market research studies, including in
determining company policies in the future. As two
companies engaged in the digital market, Gojek and
Tokopedia have great control over the variety of data of
their consumers so mastery of data is the dominant factor
in both.
Objective: This study aims to discuss how legal
arrangements in Indonesia regarding the practice of data
monopoly as a form of unhealthy business competition and
whether merger activities between Gojek and Tokopedia
that can cause potential data monopolies can be justified
according to Law Number 5 of 1999 concerning Monopoly
and Business Competition Well.
Methods: This research is normative research conducted
by focusing on the study of primary, secondary, and tertiary
legal materials.
Results: The results of the study show that at this time there
is no strict supervision and limitation of data control from
the GoTo company and is still included in the gray realm to
be concluded as a monopoly act according to Law Number
5 of 1999.
Conclusion: In Indonesia, the practice of data monopoly is
currently still regulated by referring to Law No. 5 of 1999
concerning the Prohibition of Monopoly Practices and
Unfair Business Competition. According to these
provisions, the monopoly occurs and is prohibited when
control of the data can then cause unfair business
competition in the market, the existence of price controls,
and prevent other business actors from entering and
competing in the market. As a result, the mastery of Big
Data brings business actors to have full dominance in the
market. If this is proven to happen, then according to the
provisions in the laws and regulations, business actors can
be threatened with criminal sanctions of fines and
Valencia Gustin, Helza Nova Lita, Aam Suryamah / JOSR: Journal of Social Research, 1(12),
642-658
Risk of GoTo Company's Big Data Monopoly Reviewed from the Anti-Monopoly Law
644
imprisonment following the losses they have caused.
Keywords: Data, GoTo, Monopoly, Business Competition
*Correspondent Author : Valencia Gustin
Email : valencia19001@mail.unpad.ac.id
INTRODUCTION
Along with the development of globalization, human innovation in terms of
technological developments has also become increasingly developed. Communication and
information are getting easier and faster to obtain. As a result of this convenience, many
changes have occurred in the industrial sectors. One of the changes that many feels in the
economic field is a change in the business delivery model.
The digital era has made business systems change to become more advanced and
efficient. The use of database systems and the internet makes business more flexible and
expansive. Compared with conventional business patterns that are still carried out by
bringing together sellers and buyers directly, business implementation in the digital era can
simply occur immediately without the need for face-to-face meetings. This implementation
becomes possible with the use of the internet as a means of supporting operations in
business systems (Hotana, 2018).
The rampant use of the internet in society affects changes in business system
patterns. As a result of this, e-commerce businesses and various other types of digital
businesses were created that carried out their business programs through digital
applications. This is an answer to market demand in changing business systems based on
the principle of practicality. People want a system that can meet their needs quickly and
flexibly at all times. E-commerce and marketplaces are present in response to this demand,
where they are present as a business pattern based on the use of the internet as a means of
media in supporting their gan development lines and business operations (Hotana, 2018).
Focusing on operations in the digital market, e-commerce is not spared from
business competition in the market. The trend of the digital market entering Indonesia
makes many other similar businesses enter and compete in the digital market.
Unfortunately, causality in the continuity of the e-commerce business is not only limited to
its business operations in the digital market, but the control of data owned by the sector
will also affect other business development sectors in different fields due to cooperation
carried out by both parties in the sale or release of products. This is because mastery of the
marketplace makes them special data to see market developments in real-time. For example
on the current trends in the search list of their site, including also the age, hobbies, and
transaction patterns of their users with a fantastic total number of users.
The focus of this research will take a case study on the GoTo company as a result
of the merger between Gojek and Tokopedia which was carried out in May 2021. As a brief
illustration, Gojek itself is a company that offers on-demand business programs, where
based on applications, they offer automotive services, food, daily necessities, to household
services. As a result, since its establishment in 2010, Gojek has become a company that
leads a leading position in the field of service services. It was recorded that in June 2021,
Gojek has achieved many application downloaders of more than 190 (one hundred and
ninety) million downloads. This number is a fantastic number, which is accompanied by a
large amount of data mastery (Pressrelease, 2021).
Unlike Gojek with its on-demand services, Tokopedia is present as a leading
company in the e-commerce business sector (Sorace, Reinhardt, & Vaughn, 1997). In its
company's track record in 2020, Tokopedia is recorded to have achieved market share with
Valencia Gustin, Helza Nova Lita, Aam Suryamah / JOSR: Journal of Social Research, 1(12),
642-658
Risk of GoTo Company's Big Data Monopoly Reviewed from the Anti-Monopoly Law
645
a value of 6,465 million USD which makes the company ranked first in the retail industry
throughout Southeast Asia (Sorace et al., 1997).
Figure 1.
E-commerce Visitor Count Statistics, Source: Katadata, 2021.
Tokopedia has a record number of visitors that still far exceeds Shopee (see Figure
1). As a result, there is no need to doubt that Tokopedia has far more consumer data records.
The calculation of data mastery also considers data that is included in consumer interactions
in the retail market obtained in the use of its application.
The merger between Gojek and Tokopedia in 2021 made GoTo automatically
dominate a wide variety of industries. The dominance sector is also then accompanied by
mastery of large data, where the data comes from a combination of Gojek data with
Tokopedia. As a result, there is a risk of a data monopoly on the company. These data are
controlled in very large quantities and include every piece of information that is crucial to
its users so it should be present as one of the considerations in monopoly practices. If left
unattended, one of the potential risks can lead to data monopoly practices in the company.
In this case, the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) then has a role
and obligation in the field of business competition to ensure that data monopolies that lead
to unfair business competition do not occur in the future (Effendi, 2020).
Research Objectives
This study aims to discuss the answers to solving problems as follows:
1. What is the legal regulation in Indonesia regarding the practice of data monopoly
as a form of unfair business competition?
2. Can the merger between Gojek and Tokopedia that can cause a potential data
monopoly to be justified according to Law Number 5 of 1999 concerning
Monopoly and Unfair Business Competition?
RESEARCH METHODS
The research in this paper is carried out using normative juridical methods, where
research is carried out using sources of research considerations derived from secondary
materials. The research is then carried out by analyzing related materials which will then
be used to answer the burden of questions asked as material for problems to be studied
subsequently (Muchtar, 2015).
Valencia Gustin, Helza Nova Lita, Aam Suryamah / JOSR: Journal of Social Research, 1(12),
642-658
Risk of GoTo Company's Big Data Monopoly Reviewed from the Anti-Monopoly Law
646
Analysis of research studies is carried out by utilizing literature study sources that
are studied and studied further in the research. These sources are obtained by taking
research materials and conclusions contained in literature materials, both in the form of
books, journals, and official websites, as the main source object of research. In addition,
the study tested an analysis sourced from primary legal materials in the form of various
laws and regulations that regulate provisions related to aspects of the problem under study.
The results of the subsequent discoveries are analyzed in qualitative data, in the form of
descriptive notes and analysis of the findings of sources in the literature found.
Theoretical Review
1. Economic Democracy and Anti-Monopoly Law
Indonesia's position as a country of law is clearly stated in the idea of the 1945
Constitution (hereinafter referred to as the "1945 Constitution"). In a legal state, the law is
the essence of the continuity of state administration. Law is a system that is just and
functional. Law is formed to structure an orderly and orderly state of affairs in every
existing field, both economic, social, political, and other areas in the implementation of
state life (Asshiddiqie, 2011).
The relevance between the legal position and the practice of organizing Indonesia's
national economic activities itself is contained in Article 27 paragraph (2) and Article 33
paragraph of the 1945 Constitution. Article 27 paragraph (2) explains the importance of
regulating the market economy where there is a right to a decent livelihood and work for
every Indonesian citizen. This opportunity is then contained in Article 33 which explains
the economic system that is carried out based on the principle of kinship and that every
important branch of production will be controlled by the state. Based on the explanation of
Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution, Indonesia is a country that implements economic
democracy. This is as stated in the 1993 MPR Decree in the Outlines of the State Direction
that the implementation of economic democracy is held by avoiding the centralization of
the economy in a certain group, harming other parties, and the occurrence of unfair business
competition that is contrary to the principle of justice (Margono, 2009).
To ensure that economic democracy is achieved in the market system in Indonesia,
the Government of Indonesia issued relevant regulations to ensure that business
competition in the market healthily takes place. The competition itself is a term that boils
down to English, namely competition which means competition, competing activities, or
matches. In the management dictionary itself, competition is defined as an event where
there are two or more parties of a person or company each party competes with the other
to get orders through offers with the most profitable conditions or prices. This competitive
context can be done through various means, such as sales promotion (advertising), target
market segments, variations, quality offers, discounts or discounts, and others (Marbun,
2003).
While the definition of self-effort comes as a term that describes an action event
that is held in a directed and organized manner, whether carried out by a person or a group,
to achieve a predetermined goal. The business competition will be referred to the as fair
competition when subject to and complying with existing regulations. However, if there is
a violation later, there will be indications of the possibility of unfair business competition,
such as monopoly.
According to Suyud Margono, in his book "Anti-Monopoly Law", monopoly
occurs when a business actor has exclusive control in determining market prices and the
supply of certain goods and/or services (Marbun, 2003). Meanwhile, according to the
Black Law Dictionary, monopoly itself is the advantage (privilege) of a certain company,
one of which can be in the form of exclusive rights to power in carrying out a business
activity, to the control of a commodity (Dictionary, 1979).
Valencia Gustin, Helza Nova Lita, Aam Suryamah / JOSR: Journal of Social Research, 1(12),
642-658
Risk of GoTo Company's Big Data Monopoly Reviewed from the Anti-Monopoly Law
647
The Anti-Monopoly Law in Indonesia is further contained in Law Number 5 of
1999 (Law No. 5/1999) concerning the Prohibition of Monopoly Practices and Unfair
Business Competition. In general, the establishment of the Anti-Monopoly Law itself is
held to support the market economy system so that competition in the market is held
healthily, there is no exploitation of consumers, and competition remains alive in
supporting market development.
One of the corporate behaviors regulated in the policy of the Anti-Monopoly Law
is mergers (Fuady, 1999). Basically, according to Stephen F. Ross, violations of the Anti-
Monopoly Law can be reviewed according to the rule of reason or per se illegal, namely
the approach used by the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) in
conducting evaluations related to the procurement of a certain agreement, where whether
the agreement has consequences as contained in Law No. 5/1999. This assessment can be
seen in the formulation of the provisions of Law No. 5/1999, where more in-depth research
will be needed on articles that have the sound of "suspected" or "which can result". On the
contrary, the per se illegal approach is generally used against the provisions of articles that
state prohibitions. According to Johnny Ibrahim, the difference between the two lies in the
burden of proof (Prananingtyas, Lubis, Anggraini, & Toha, 2017), wherein the rule of
reason, the proof is needed on the impact of actions carried out by business actors, where
whether these actions are proven to be detrimental to society or are a form of unfair business
competition (Citrawan, 2017). The next analysis of monopoly practices will use a rule of
reason approach with the consequences in Law No. 5/1999 as a classification of prohibited
activities and needs to prove in advance the impact of its activities (Ibrahim, 2006).
In the analysis to determine whether a merger practice is an act of monopoly, it is
necessary to analyze the elements of monopoly on the practice that occurs. In the rule of
reason approach, a review of monopoly practices can be analyzed in terms of legislation
and market potential. Based on the review of laws and regulations, the elements of
monopoly according to Law No. 5/1999 are (Sirait & Gunadarma, 2010):
1. The existence of concentrating economic power on one or more business actors;
2. There is mastery of the marketing or production of goods and/or services;
3. The occurrence of unfair business competition; and
4. Inflicting harm on the public interest.
2. Data and Monopoly Practices
In contrast to the review according to these laws and regulations, the theory of the
rule of reason in the practice of monopoly is also seen through the potential for monopolies
to occur in market development. According to the writings of Hanif N. W., to test the
monopoly aspect of the market, a measure of various references is needed as a factor that
assesses whether a business competition is real and substantial. It requires prior proof for
an anti-competitive measure that it has a negative effect on market competition. This
evidence can be seen through an analytical study of Article 25 of Law No. 5/1999 on the
dominant position and also Article 27 of Law No. 5/1999 on cross-ownership. According
to Law No. 5/1999, for example, the dominant position occurs when a business actor has
no competitors in the market or he has the highest position so that he has power over market
share, financial capabilities, access to sales of the supply of goods, adjustments to demand
and supply of goods, to business adjustments to the demand for goods and services in the
market. One of these adjustments can be easily achieved if a business actor has sufficient
data to review market developments up-to-date (Widhiyanti, 2016).
The use of data in company business operations in the digital age often has a close
relationship with the "value of data." According to Atal Malviya and Mike Malmgren's
writings in "Big Data for Managers; Creating Value", data has an important value, both for
society, government, and companies. For the public, data is present as information related
to public policy and public services. For governments, data exists as a tool to improve the
efficiency of government policies, law enforcement (such as in looking at the potential for
tax evasion at the Tax Department in the UK), and in communicating with the public. As
Valencia Gustin, Helza Nova Lita, Aam Suryamah / JOSR: Journal of Social Research, 1(12),
642-658
Risk of GoTo Company's Big Data Monopoly Reviewed from the Anti-Monopoly Law
648
for companies, data is often present as an increase in economic value for companies. The
importance of data for business actors in their business ventures is born from the ability of
Big Data to identify consumer behavior and tastes, where companies can better know their
consumers, target consumers in marketing, to know which consumer segments are needed
to be given more or less marketing allocation so that companies can then attract more
consumers and achieve maximum profits. (Malviya & Malmgren, 2018) .
According to the provisions of Article 1 paragraph (2) of Law Number 8 of 1999
concerning Consumer Protection (hereinafter referred to as "Law No. 8/1999"), consumers
are each person who uses (consumes) a good and/or service that exists in society, where
the user is carried out either for the benefit of others, himself, or other living beings, and
the goods and/or services are not traded back (Benuf, Mahmudah, & Priyono, 2019).
Consumers who are related buyers of a company generally also provide related data needed
for the continuity of the company's business operations. The data provided by consumers
can be in the form of non-confidential data to data that is personal and needs to be kept
secret. Personal data itself is data belonging to a person that needs to be stored, treated,
secured the truth about it, and given protection against the confidentiality of the data. In
electronic systems, the protection of personal data is considered a privacy that needs to be
maintained for its rights and honor.
According to the provisions of Article 1 paragraph (3) of Law No. 8/1999, business
actors are business entities and individuals both domiciled and carrying out their business
activities in the economic sector, both the form of legal entities and not, through agreements
held jointly in the territory of the State of Indonesia. A business actor must run his business
based on good faith and always convey honest.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
1. Positive Legal Regulation in Indonesia Regarding Data Monopoly Practices
The digital revolution in the economic field presents the use of data as an
economical commodity. In their research, Agung Pujianto, Awin Mulyati, and Novaria
(2018) stated that the presence of Big Data provides open opportunities for every company
in managing the company's business strategy and future innovations carried out by taking,
processing, and analyzing the data effectively and quickly and with a large level of
volatility. In Dumbill's (2012) opinion, Big Data is data with a capacity load that exceeds
the conventional system on the database. Furthermore, according to Gartner, Big Data is
a variety of data with high volumes and large information assets so that then its use in
business systems can make the business improve the automation process which leads to
efficiency and accuracy of decision-making and understanding of the market (Pujianto,
Mulyati, & Novaria, 2018).
Mastery of Big Data has a close relationship with business processes in the digital
era colored by technology in its development. By using Big Data, companies will be able
to know firsthand the factors that influence consumer decisions in purchasing, and social
media sentiment, track market trends in real-time and improve the company's image
(Kalangi, 2017). As a result, a company that succeeds in utilizing and processing data in
high complexity, with a variety of variety, large volumes, and high speed, will be able to
obtain large profits or profitability as well. This is the advantage of mastering data in the
digital era. A thorough data analysis can lead companies to conclude the populations that
produce these varieties of data. As a result, output on economic benefits is affected.
The crucial data position in the development of the company makes companies that
have control over Big Data gain an advantage. However, too much control can be at risk to
monopolistic practices in the context of unfair business competition. According to a review
Valencia Gustin, Helza Nova Lita, Aam Suryamah / JOSR: Journal of Social Research, 1(12),
642-658
Risk of GoTo Company's Big Data Monopoly Reviewed from the Anti-Monopoly Law
649
of the positive legal rules in force in Indonesia, monopolistic practices can lead to unfair
business competition in the market. In Indonesia's positive law constituents, unfair business
competition is further regulated in Law Number 5 of 1999 concerning the Prohibition of
Monopoly Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Law 5/1999).
According to the provisions of Article 1 paragraph (6) of Law No. 5/1999, a
business competition practice is categorized as unfair business competition when in
carrying out the business competition, business actors use methods that are unlawful,
dishonest, or hinder the occurrence of business competition in carrying out production
and/or marketing activities on certain good and/or service. This unfair business competition
can occur for various reasons, one of which is the company's actions, such as merging or
merging which then has the potential to monopolistic practices that are prohibited by law.
This action further has the potential to violate the provisions of Article 12 of Law No.
5/1999, where the regulation regulates related to the prohibition that a business actor is not
allowed to merge to create a joint company on a larger scale with other business actors if
the activity has the potential to lead to monopolistic practices or unhealthy. While still
paying full attention to the survivability of the two companies, the new company was then
established to master the production or marketing control of a good and/or service, as well
as dominate the market. As a result monopoly, practices are potentially occurring (Effendi,
2020).
Broadly speaking, an act of a business actor in trading that is prohibited according
to Law No. 5/1999 is the act of a business actor who in carrying out his business brings
the potential in making a loss to the public interest and unfair business competition. This
also applies to monopolistic practices that have the potential to lead to unfair business
competition in the market. Therefore, the prohibition is then interpreted as a prohibition in
carrying out acts of monopoly practice, which is a practice that occurs over the control of
the market or control over the production of a good and/or service held by one person or
group of business actors.
Data monopoly exists as a term for the classification of monopoly cases that are
exclusively present and become a highlight in the digital business era. In reviewing
violations on the data monopoly basis, a definition of the data itself is needed in the positive
legal position in Indonesia. If reviewing according to the definition contained in the
Government Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 80 of 2019 (PP No. 80/2019)
concerning Trade Through Electronic Systems, the data can be positioned as goods. This
is explained in the provisions of Article 1 paragraph (19) PP No. 80/2019, that (Article 1
paragraph 19 of the Government Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 80 of
2019 concerning Trade Through Electronic Systems, n.d.)
"Digital Goods are any intangible goods in the form of electronic or digital
information including goods that are the result of conversion or transfer or goods that are
originally in electronic form, including but not limited to software, multimedia, or
electronic data."
The definition of goods according to the provisions of Article 1 paragraph (18) PP
No. 80/2019, goods are references used to every object, whether moving or not, as well as
tangible or intangible objects, objects that can be exhausted or not, where the object can be
used, handled, utilized, and traded by consumers and business.
The context of the definition of data as goods as contained in PP No. 80/2019 can
be justified by the current use of data. Data is used as a commodity to evaluate business
development, form business strategies, even as goods that are sold freely on the internet.
There are many cases of data sales in Indonesia, where it explains the economic value that
is present from the data.
As a result of the position of data as an item, in accordance with the provisions of
monopoly as stipulated in the provisions of Article 1 paragraph (2) of Law No. 5/1999,
control over excessive data can lead to monopolistic practices. In the definition of
monopoly practice, there are several indicators contained, including [34]:
Valencia Gustin, Helza Nova Lita, Aam Suryamah / JOSR: Journal of Social Research, 1(12),
642-658
Risk of GoTo Company's Big Data Monopoly Reviewed from the Anti-Monopoly Law
650
1. That monopoly arises at a time when there is a concentration of economic power;
2. Can be done by one or more business actors;
3. The result of actions that lead to control over the production or marketing of a good
and/or service; and
4. Have the risk of making losses that affect the public interest and unfair business
competition.
When viewed from every indicator contained in the elements of monopoly practice
according to the provisions of Article 1 paragraph (2) of Law No. 5/1999, it can be said
that a business actor becomes a data monopoly when he controls a very large amount of
data, which makes him economically superior and carries risks to the occurrence of unfair
business competition and losses to the public interest. With the mastery of this very large
data, the company then becomes superior in market control, thus hindering the occurrence
of healthy business competition. In addition, several indicators need to be considered as
part of the assessment indicators to be able to assess whether a business actor should
practice monopoly or not. These indicators are contained in Article 17 paragraph (2) of
Law No. 5/1999 which states that a business actor will be considered or suspected if he
carries out monopolistic practices if in his business line he does the following things [35]:
1. If there is no substitution of the goods and/or services concerned;
2. If the business results in the obstruction of other business actors from entering with
similar types of goods and/or services in their business competition; or
3. If there is a dominance of control of more than 50% (fifty percent) over the market
share of a certain good and/or service by one business actor or one group of
business actors.
To be able to assess whether a business actor carries out an act of data monopoly
or not has not been found a clear standard in the provisions of positive law in Indonesia. At
present, the evaluation of monopoly practices is in the hands of the KPPU as the institution
responsible for determining the occurrence of a monopoly violation. This is following the
provisions of Article 1 paragraph (18) of Law No. 5/1999 which explains that the KPPU is
present as a commission whose formation is carried out to supervise business activities
carried out by business actors to ensure that the business activities they carry out do not
lead to monopolistic practices or unfair business competition.
KPPU exists as an independent institution that ensures that business competition
activities in Indonesia can healthily take place. As an independent institution, the position
of the KPPU is independent of the influence of government power and any party so that
then the position of this institution will have strong neutrality. To ensure that business
competition in Indonesia healthily takes place, based on the provisions of Article 35 of Law
No. 5 of 1999, KPPUhas the following duties (Article 35 of Law Number 5 of 1999
concerning Prohibition of Monopoly Practices and Unfair Business Competition, n.d.) :
1. The task of assessing an agreement against its implications for monopolistic
practices and unfair business competition;
2. The task of assessing a business activity against its implications for monopolistic
practices and unfair business competition;
3. The task is assessing the use of dominant positions to their implications for
monopolistic practices and unfair business competition;
4. Take action following the authority of the KPPU as stipulated in Article 36 of Law
No. 5/1999;
5. Preparing publications and/or guidelines related to the Anti-Monopoly Law; San
6. Conduct regular reporting to the House of Representatives and the President related
to the work of the KPPU.
In monopoly practice, KPPU must ensure that every monopoly practice that occurs
is not a practice that violates the provisions of Law No. 5/1999 or causes unfair business
competition. Therefore, in carrying out this task, the KPPU is further given several
authorities as contained to receive complaints reports of related violations and investigate
Valencia Gustin, Helza Nova Lita, Aam Suryamah / JOSR: Journal of Social Research, 1(12),
642-658
Risk of GoTo Company's Big Data Monopoly Reviewed from the Anti-Monopoly Law
651
and decide on alleged acts n violations of Law No. 5/1999 (Article 36 of Law Number 5
of 1999 concerning Prohibition of Monopoly Practices and Unfair Business Competition,
n.d.).
In the constituents of positive business competition law in Indonesia, Law No.
5/1999 has provided a series of clear provisions for business actors who are proven to have
monopolized as a form of unfair business competition action. Based on the provisions
contained in Article 48 paragraph (1) of Law No. 5/1999, it is stated that a business actor
who is proven to have violated the provisions of the laws and regulations in the field of
monopoly activities is threatened with a criminal penalty of confinement in place of a
maximum fine of 6 (six) months or a fine with a minimum Rp. 25,000,000,000.00 (twenty-
five billion rupiahs) with a maximum value of Rp. 100,000,000,000.00 (one hundred billion
rupiahs). In addition, the punishment provisions can also be supplemented by additional
criminal provisions as referring to Article 10 of the Criminal Code (KUHP) which is
described as an additional criminal section of Article 9 of Law No. 5/1999. Some of the
additional penalties that may be imposed further consist of the following (Article 49 of
Law No. 5 of 1999 concerning the Prohibition of Monopoly Practices and Unfair Business
Competition, n.d.) :
1. Revocation of business licenses from the business actors concerned;
2. Prohibited from the business actor concerned in occupying the position of
commissioner or director within a drinking period of 2 (two) years and a maximum
of 5 (five years); or
3. Dismissal of certain actions or activities that are considered detrimental to other
parties.
In addition, in the renewal of its legal reforms, the Indonesian government then
further issued Government Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 44 of 2021
(PP No. 44/2021) related to the Implementation of the Prohibition of Monopoly Practices
and Unfair Business Competition. The regulation was formed to be able to monitor
competition in the market so that there is no form of unfair business competition or other
things that are not desirable to happen, such as monopoly practices that cause losses to third
parties or the general public. PP No. 44/2021 is then present as the implementer of the
provisions of Articles 118 and 185 letter b of Law Number 11 of 2020 related to Job
Creation (Law No. 11/2020). Article 118 of Law No. 11/2020 regulates the authority of the
KPPU in imposing administrative sanctions on business actors who violate the provisions
of Law No. 5/1999 (Article 118 of Law Number 11 of 2020 concerning Job Creation, n.d.).
As an implementing regulation of Law No. 11/2020, PP No. 44/2021 also regulates
the criteria for imposing sanctions and fines for business actors who violate the provisions
of Law No/5/2020. This criterion can be used as an illustration of the type of administrative
sanctions that will be imposed on violators for their actions, according to the provisions of
Article 5 paragraph (1) of PP No. 44/2021, administrative sanctions imposed by the KPPU
are carried out for the following considerations (Article 5 paragraph 1 of Government
Regulation Number 44 of 2021 concerning the Implementation of the Prohibition of
Monopoly Practices and Unfair Business Competition, n.d.) :
1. That the sanctions will be imposed depending on the impact or extent of the
violation of the business actor;
2. That the sanctions will be imposed by looking at the ongoing business activities;
and/or
3. That the sanctions will be imposed on clear grounds and considerations.
Therefore, based on the provisions of Article 5 paragraph (1) of PP No. 44/2021, a
sanction to business actors will be imposed following the three existing consideration
criteria. That way administrative sanctions can be imposed lightly or severely depending
on the actions of business actors and their impacts, as well as other factors that can affect
the consideration of the KPPU in determining alleged violations of these business actors.
Valencia Gustin, Helza Nova Lita, Aam Suryamah / JOSR: Journal of Social Research, 1(12),
642-658
Risk of GoTo Company's Big Data Monopoly Reviewed from the Anti-Monopoly Law
652
2. GoTo Merger Practices According to Anti-Monopoly Law
The development of the global digital era has brought a significant change to the
market. The digital market is one type of market that grows due to advances in technology
based on the use of internet network systems. At this time, almost every company will at
least intersect with business in the digital market due to the adaptation of the use of
technology to improve efficiency and business lines in the company.
But apart from every type of business carried out by the company, business
competition that arises in the market is an unavoidable thing. Of course, business
competition is also a normal and familiar thing to the business world in every country in
the world. In Indonesia, the birth of the existence of the digital market is a new field
opportunity for every business actor who competes in this market segment. In general, the
main players competing in the digital market sector consist of the digital learning business
sector, digital marketing, marketplaces, to e-commerce engaged in digital business lines.
In general, each of these companies often intersects with each other due to their movements
which are in a fairly uniform pattern, namely using digital interfaces in their operations. As
a result, business competition is unavoidable in the digital market. Every business actor
will then try as much as possible to be able to achieve a position as a leader in the market
with maximum profit (Hotana, 2018).
Although it is not entirely a bad thing, a business competition that is not properly
controlled brings the potential in giving birth to unfair business competition practices. In
the digital market, business competition has the potential to occur in the e-commerce
business line, namely the business sector that offers to buy and sell transactions using
internet facilities carried out through electronic media (Unpas, 2012). Differences in the
number of users and the mastery of different data in each company make a separate
dispersion of business competition. As a result, companies with a large amount of data and
consumer mastery will win the competition.
The data problem is new in the context of assessing business competition activities.
Controlling huge amounts of data without dick limits can lead to data monopoly practices.
In Indonesia, one of the well-known cases of business competition in the digital market
recently was the merger between two decacorn group companies, namely Gojek and
Tokopedia, which merged to help one GoTo company as a joint company. GoTo then
combines each service which, among others, includes services in the fields of financial
transactions, modes of transportation, delivery of food and goods, e-commerce, and other
services that were previously loaded separately at the two previous Gojek and Tokopedia
companies. As a result, GoTo has a very wide level of service differentiation with each of
these businesses engaged in the digital market. In addition, GoTo also has a very high data
mastery rate, considering that both Gojek and Tokopedia are leading companies in their
fields (A, 2021).
The company's legal activities, such as in the merger, are carried out by integrating
shares and assets owned by the two companies (Aliy & Susilowati, 2019). As a result,
practical data as a digital asset will also be incorporated and play a large role in the
company's operations in making a profit. According to Suciati (2019), data monopoly has
been proven to be able to increase product advertising based on consumer preferences,
increase offers, and help companies to be able to make their best business decisions
(Suciati, 2019).
Access to data plays a big role in the expansion of the power that a company has.
Companies that are positioned to have a large Big Data warehouse with the ability to
process it tends to have a superior position in the market. According to Asep Irawan (2020),
a market controlled by companies holding Big Data generally occurs due to the company's
position which has a high bargaining value, both in company activities and negotiations in
corporate cooperation (Kurniawan & Yun, 2018). Companies that have great data mastery
will be able to get many benefits, both in the company cooperation sector that attracts many
parties to cooperate, collaboration, marketing, and high sales levels.
Valencia Gustin, Helza Nova Lita, Aam Suryamah / JOSR: Journal of Social Research, 1(12),
642-658
Risk of GoTo Company's Big Data Monopoly Reviewed from the Anti-Monopoly Law
653
As an overview, Gojek is currently a company engaged in the on-demand service
sector and financial transactions on a large scale. The number of active users of Gojek is
widespread throughout Southeast Asia and Gojek is present as a leading company in its
sector. Meanwhile, Tokopedia is a company in the marketplace sector, where it does its
business based on the use of technology and digital platforms to carry out buying and
selling transactions and other services, including investment. So from the two business
lines, GoTo can be said to dominate the variety of business sectors ranging from
investment, payment systems, logistics, marketplaces, and other business lines in the digital
market economy ecosystem in Indonesia. As a result, GoTo has a large data mastery of the
various market. This starts from consumer addresses, telephone numbers, tastes, active
hours, daily life, and various other data without limitations. Meanwhile, in their capital,
both Gojek and Tokopedia stood up by getting large capital injections as the basis for
business from foreign investors.
In 2021 GoTo is recorded to have a total of 100 million active users every month.
From this figure, this company targets an increase to reach 140 million active users
(Sukarmi, Tejomurti, & Alam, 2021). When assessed based on iPrice digital analysis in the
second quarter of 2021, visitors from Tokopedia have reached nearly 150 million visitors
per month. This figure is much more than Shopee which only reaches a figure of around
132 million per month. Meanwhile, with the merger of Gojek and Tokopedia, the data sites
of the two companies will then be incorporated and integrated into GoTo. As a result, there
is a potential data monopoly in the company's data warehouse. If left without strict planning
or supervision, it has the potential to have an impact on the development of the company
and marketing in the market sector of digital l Indonesia in the future.
However, in ascertaining whether GoTo's actions are included in monopoly
practices that can cause unfair business competition, this needs to be seen according to the
consideration of Law No. 5/1999 concerning the Prohibition of Monopoly Practices and
Unfair Business Competition. Mastery of data on GoTo is a definite thing and no longer
needs to be questioned. However, is mastery sufficient to be an indicator of monopolistic
practices?
To prove whether an activity falls under prohibited monopolistic practices,
according to the rule of reason approach, proof of the actions of the business actor is needed
if the action violates the provisions of the law. At this time, Law No. 5/1999 still does not
include the Big Data standard as one of the standards in assessing monopoly practices.
However, in the provisions on monopoly practices, Law No. 5/1999 states that a monopoly
practice is considered to occur at the time of fulfillment of the elements of monopoly
practice required in Law No. 5/1999 which includes, among others, the concentration of
economic activities, unfair business competition, losses to other parties, and control over
goods and/or services. (Article 1 paragraph 2 of Law Number 5 of 1999 concerning the
Prohibition of Monopoly Practices and Unfair Business Competition, n.d.) .
Economic centralization is considered to occur if there is real control by one or
more business actors over the market so that then the business actor can determine the price
of goods and/or services (Article 1 Paragraph 3). Until now, namely September 2022, there
is still no indication of GoTo's ability to unilaterally increase prices for its services and it
has not happened. The controversial phenomenon is only limited to the transportation
system, but it is still implemented within reasonable limits. Therefore, it can be concluded
that the concentration of economic power does not arise after the merger.
Unfair business competition is an indicator of monopoly when business
competition is carried out unlawfully, dishonestly, or hinders business competition. In
practical terms, GoTo control GoTo data cannot be said to be unlawful, because at this time
there are no laws and regulations governing the number of data limitations that can be
owned by a company or what data cannot be collected. The new Personal Data Protection
Law passed on September 20, 2022, is only limited to providing an overview of the
guarantee of protection of personal data and the responsibility of the data holder for their
Valencia Gustin, Helza Nova Lita, Aam Suryamah / JOSR: Journal of Social Research, 1(12),
642-658
Risk of GoTo Company's Big Data Monopoly Reviewed from the Anti-Monopoly Law
654
obligations to safeguard the data. Therefore, what GoTo does is not an act that is against
the applicable law in Indonesia. In addition, every data collection is carried out honestly
and openly, following the consent of its consumers as stated through the application. This
is like for example Identity Card (KTP) data for verification, phone number data, address,
and other data that is filled in voluntarily. However, GoTo still must protect these data.
Meanwhile, other data related to tastes, hobbies, and needs are data obtained through Big
Data processing on application traffic. As a result, the data is not exclusive and is still not
regulated by law in the Personal Data Protection Law.
A special characteristic arising from the Big Data monopoly is its great risk to
hinder the growth of other business actors to enter and compete. This is caused by the
mastery of large data, causing problems with market competition. A company can
accurately predict the market, and then become the overlord of the market. But at this time,
this situation has not yet fully occurred. At this time GoTo still has many competitors in
each of its sectors, although similar competitors have not yet emerged that master similar
business diversification. For example, in the marketplace field, there are still Lazada and
Shopee who are still competing fiercely, regardless of their defeat. In addition, in terms of
on-demand business, there is still Grab with a similar type of business. Therefore, despite
its wide scope of diversification, the practice is not enough to be said to be a monopoly
practice. But on the one hand, broadly speaking, the impact brought by the GoTo merger
has made it difficult for new players who are still growing to enter the market. This is due
to the control over the digital market that has already been controlled by big players. As a
result, despite the exciting innovations, new players are difficult to develop because their
growth depends on the practices of large players in the Indonesian digital market (Fauzie,
2021).
In Indonesian practice, the KPPU's ban on merger activities will occur when the
merger significantly creates weaknesses in effective market competition and the emergence
of market forces from business actors holding mergers. If this context is viewed in terms
of analysis of the use of Big Data on GoTo, then the question that will need to be answered
is the extent to which Big Data will bring its role to GoTo's progress in market competition
as one of the indicators that have the potential to cause monopoly.
At the time of the GoTo merger, KPPU was recorded as conducting a special
evaluation of the merger. In the results of his evaluation, Guntur Syahputra as Deputy
Chairman of the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) stated that the
merger practice from GoTo did not violate the provisions of the Anti-Monopoly Law or
Law No. 5/1999. The result of the decision was born after a thorough evaluation of the
KPPU, where it was stated that there would be no monopolistic practices occurring due to
the absence of a market concentration formed. The existing market between Gojek and
Tokopedia is a multi-set market so the impact of the merger of the two does not have a
significant impact. Even so, it is undeniable that the merger made the income of the two
lead to a significant increase ("KPPU: Gojek and Tokopedia Merger So Goto Does Not
Monopolize - Startup Katadata.co.id," 2022).
Unfortunately, data mastery has not been a special consideration in the process
carried out by KPPU for the evaluation of the GoTo merger. GoTo's mastery of large data
should automatically make every collaboration with the company get information on the
digital market that has a significant impact. Unfortunately, at this time, the problem still
cannot be answered accurately because there is no definite report on the extent to which
the data is used in GoTo's business competition activities. There is no definitive calculation
of the data related to how much data GoTo currently holds, including the complete variation
of each data type. However, because there is no complete report that the control of Big Data
on GoTo brings major obstacles to the market due to its company, the things done by GoTo
cannot be classified as monopolistic actions at this time.
Despite the unclear amount of data available, researchers believe that the use of
large data without these limitations will bring great risks to the market. Data that can
Valencia Gustin, Helza Nova Lita, Aam Suryamah / JOSR: Journal of Social Research, 1(12),
642-658
Risk of GoTo Company's Big Data Monopoly Reviewed from the Anti-Monopoly Law
655
analyze the market including the tastes of a large number of consumers, will quickly assess
market trends and developments, making the company will be able to put itself in a
favorable position in the competition. As a result, the company and each of its partners in
related cooperation can have an absolute advantage in looking at certain market trends.
CONCLUSION
Mastery of Big Data is an important point that needs to be studied in business
competition in the digital market. In Indonesia, the practice of data monopoly is currently
still regulated by referring to Law No. 5 of 1999 concerning the Prohibition of Monopoly
Practices and Unfair Business Competition. According to these provisions, the monopoly
occurs and is prohibited when control of the data can then cause unfair business competition
in the market, the existence of price controls, and prevent other business actors from
entering and competing in the market. As a result, the mastery of Big Data brings business
actors to have full dominance in the market. If this is proven to happen, then according to
the provisions in the laws and regulations, business actors can be threatened with criminal
sanctions of fines and imprisonment following the losses they have caused.
In GoTo's merger practice, dominance over the market is clearly due to Big Data
dicks occurring in very large numbers. In addition, in its study of the GoTo merger, KPPU
has not added data control as one aspect of the assessment of monopoly activities. As a
result, there is currently no definitive study of the impact of mastering GoTo data on
business competition. However, researchers believe that mastery of the data has a
significant influence on the market, which has the potential to impact data monopolies.
Even so, at this time GoTo still has not achieved a position where it can fully control prices
or achieve dominance over the digital market so the monopoly position has not yet fully
occurred.
Suggestion
Based on the results of this study, the authors have some suggestions as follows:
1. For the KPPU to start including supervision of the amount of data as an indicator
of assessment of monopolistic practices or business competition that is not as good
as t.
2. The establishment of special regulations on data is non-crucial or not personal data
but has value in business development so that then there is no control of data that
has the potential to damage market competition.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A, Fahmi. (2021). GoTo Business Octopus Overshadows Four Gojek and Tokopedia
Business Lina. Retrieved September 24, 2022, from
https://katadata.co.id/yuliawati/digital/60a26e040f57f/gurita-bisnis-goto-menaungi-
empat-lini-usaha-gojek-dan-tokopedia
Aliy, Laynardho Abulkhair, & Susilowati, Indri Fogar. (2019). Juridical Anaslicis Against
Case Decision No. 26/Rev. G/2015/Pn. Wsb Concerning The Limits of Regulating
Criminal Responsibility and Civil Liability towards Bank Mandiri's Responsibility in
Misuse of Bank Customer Data. Novum: Journal of Law, 6(2).
Asshiddiqie, Jimly. (2011). The idea of an Indonesian legal state. Papers presented at the
National Legal Development Planning Dialogue Forum organized by the National
Legal Development Development Agency of the Ministry of Law and.
Benuf, Cornelius, Mahmudah, Siti, & Priyono, Ery Agus. (2019). Legal Protection of
Valencia Gustin, Helza Nova Lita, Aam Suryamah / JOSR: Journal of Social Research, 1(12),
642-658
Risk of GoTo Company's Big Data Monopoly Reviewed from the Anti-Monopoly Law
656
Financial Technology Consumer Data Security in Indonesia. Legal Reflections:
Journal of Legal Sciences, 3(2), 145–160.
Citrar, Fitrah Akbar. (2017). Competition law: the application of the rule of reason in the
handling of cartel practices. Suluh Media.
Databooks.katadata.com. (n.d.). E-commerce Site with the Highest Number of Visitors in
Indonesia 2021. Retrieved June 27, 2022, from
https://databoks.katadata.co.id/datapublish/2022/04/12/tokopedia-e-commerce-
dengan-pengunjung-terbanyak-pada-2021
Dictionary. (1979). Black Law, The Fifth Edition. St. Paul Minn West Publishing.
Effendi, Basri. (2020). Supervision and Law Enforcement of Digital Business (E-
Commerce) By The Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) In
Unfair Business Competition Practices. Syiah Kuala Law Journal, 4(1), 21–32.
Fauzie, Yuli. (2021). Reading the Purpose and Impact of the Gojek-Tokopedia Merger –
Page 2. Retrieved September 26, 2022, from Economic website:
https://www.cnnindonesia.com/ekonomi/20210518065203-92-643595/membaca-
tujuan-dan-dampak-merger-gojek-tokopedia/2
Fuady, Munir. (1999). Anti-monopoly law: ushering in the era of fair competition. Image
of Aditya Bakti.
Goodstats.id. (n.d.). 10 largest retail companies in Southeast Asia, Indonesia dominates.
Retrieved September 24, 2022, from https://goodstats.id/article/10-perusahaan-ritel-
terbesar-di-asia-tenggara-indonesia-mendominasi-KwT5O
Hotana, Melisa Setiawan. (2018). The e-commerce industry in creating a competitive
market based on competition law. Bonum Combine Journal of Business Law, 1(1),
28–38.
Ibrahim, Johhny. (2006). Competition Law: Philosophy, Theory, and Implications of Its
Application in Indonesia. Malang: Banyumedia Publishing.
Jurnalhukum.com. (n.d.). Definition of Business Actors and Rights and Obligations of
Business Actors. Retrieved June 28, 2022, from www.jurnalhukum.com/pengertian-
pelaku-usaha/
Kalangi, Betriks Eva. (2017). Procedures for Handling Monopoly and Fraudulent
Competition Cases and Legal Sanctions for Violations of Law Number 5 of 1999. Lex
Crimen, 6(1).
KPPU: Gojek and Tokopedia Merger Becomes Goto Is Not Monopoly - Startup
Katadata.Co.Id. (2022). Retrieved September 26, 2022, from Katadata.Co.Id website:
https://katadata.co.id/desysetyowati/digital/6245d52b715fe/kppu-merger-gojek-dan-
tokopedia-jadi-goto-tak-monopoli
Kurniawan, Asep, & Yun, Yun. (2018). The influence of entrepreneurial competence and
business perpetuation on competitive advantage. Journal of Business Inspiration and
Management, 2(1), 65–78.
Malviya, Atal, & Malmgren, Mike. (2018). Big Data for Managers: Creating Value.
Routledge.
Marbun, B. N. (2003). Management Dictionary. Jakarta: Sinar Harapan Library.
Margono, Suyud. (2009). Antitrust law.
Muchtar, Henni. (2015). Normative Juridical Analysis of the Synchronization of Local
Regulations with Human Rights. Humanus, 14(1), 80–91.
Article 1 paragraph 18 of the Government Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number
80 of 2019 concerning Trade through Electronic Systems.
Article 1 paragraph 19 of the Government Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number
80 of 2019 concerning Trade Through Electronic Systems.
Article 1 paragraph 2 of Law Number 5 of 1999 concerning the Prohibition of Monopoly
Practices and Unfair Business Competition.
Article 1 letter a of Law Number 5 of 1999 concerning the Prohibition of Monopoly
Practices and Unfair Business Competition.
Valencia Gustin, Helza Nova Lita, Aam Suryamah / JOSR: Journal of Social Research, 1(12),
642-658
Risk of GoTo Company's Big Data Monopoly Reviewed from the Anti-Monopoly Law
657
Article 118 of Law Number 11 of 2020 concerning Job Creation.
Article 12 of Law Number 5 of 1999 concerning the Prohibition of Monopoly Practices and
Unfair Business Competition.
Article 35 of Law Number 5 of 1999 concerning the Prohibition of Monopoly Practices and
Unfair Business Competition.
Article 36 of Law Number 5 of 1999 concerning the Prohibition of Monopoly Practices and
Unfair Business Competition.
Article 49 of Law Number 5 of 1999 concerning the Prohibition of Monopoly Practices and
Unfair Business Competition.
Article 5 paragraph 1 of Government Regulation Number 44 of 2021 concerning the
Implementation of the Prohibition of Monopoly Practices and Unfair Business
Competition.
Prananingtyas, Paramita, Lubis, Andi Fahmi, Anggraini, Anna Maria Tri, & Toha, Kurnia.
(2017). Competition Law.
Pressrelease. (2021). Increasingly Becoming a Mainstay of Consumers, Gojek Encourages
Innovation in Three Main Services. Retrieved September 23, 2022, from
Pressrelease.Id website: https://pressrelease.kontan.co.id/release/makin-jadi-
andalan-konsumen-gojekdorong-inovasi-di-tiga-layananutama?page=all
Pujianto, Agung, Mulyati, Awin, & Novaria, Rachmawati. (2018). Utilization of Big Data
and Consumer Privacy Protection in the Digital Economy Era. WISE Scientific
Magazine, 15(2), 127–137.
Repository.umy.ac.id. (n.d.). Research Methods. Retrieved September 23, 2022, from
http://repository.umy.ac.id/bitstream/handle/123456789/15946/g. CHAPTER
II.pdf?sequence=7&isAllowed=y
Sirait, Ningrum Natasya, & Gunadarma, Andika. (2010). Overview of Business
Competition Provisions. The Indonesia Netherland National Legal Reform Program
(NLRP), Jakarta.
Sorace, Ronald E., Reinhardt, Victor S., & Vaughn, Steven A. (1997, September 16). High-
speed digital-to-RF-converter. Google Patents.
Suciati, Titis Nurwulan. (2019). Privacy Cynicism, Discrimination And Data
Commodities: The Social Media Paradox In The Era Of Surveillance Capitalism.
Journal of Communication Sciences Acta Diurna, 15(2), 145–166.
Sukarmi, Sholahuddin Al Fatih, Tejomurti, Kukuh, & Alam, Moch Zairul. (2021).
Assessing the Merger of Online Platform Companies: Does it Lead to Monopoly or
just Business Expansion? (Analysis of The Merged Company of GoTo). Jurnal Cita
Hukum, 9(3), 551–566.
Toba, Hapnis. (n.d.). Big Data: Towards the Next Evaluation of the Information Age.
Retrieved September 23, 2022, from Conference paper website:
www.Researchgate.net/publication/274712668
Unpas. (2012). What Is E-Commerce. Retrieved September 24, 2022, from Pasundan
University website: http://www.unpas.ac.id/apa-itu-e-commerce/
Upeks.co.id. (n.d.). Gojek-Tokopedia (Go-To) has 100 million monthly users. Retrieved
September 23, 2022, from https://upeks.co.id/2021/05/gojek-tokopedia-go-to-miliki-
100-juta-pengguna-bulanan/
Widhiyanti, Hanif Nur. (2016). Per Se Illegal Approach and Rule of Reason in Competition
Law (Indonesia-Malaysia Comparison). Law Arena, 8(3), 385–410.
© 2021 by the authors. Submitted for possible open access publication under the
terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY SA)
license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/).
