Publication Search

Every business actor is basically obliged to act in good faith, one of which is as a manifestation of consumer protection. Case in Decision No. 90/Pdt.Sus-BPSK/2021/Pn.Mdn) shows that there are business actors who do not carry out their obligations as they should, namely not having good intentions and not providing information to their consumers. The aim of this research is to explore legal certainty regarding the fulfillment of good faith by business actors in providing information to consumers of postpaid services based on Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 8 of 1999 concerning Consumer Protection. This research method uses normative juridical approaches to statutory, conceptual and case regulations. The research results found that the fulfillment of good faith in this case showed that legal certainty had not been realized. This is because of the legal provisions regarding this matter as regulated in Law no. 8 of 1999 concerning Consumer Protection has not been enforced properly. According to Sudikno Mertokusumo, legal certainty should be realized by implementing legal provisions as they should.

A situation that is very unbalanced between consumers and business actors is a big potential that can lead to disputes between consumers and business actors. The government has issued laws that regulate consumer protection, in particular Law Number 8 of 1999 concerning Consumer Protection. The goal is to provide protection to consumers. This research is intended to: (1) to find out the role of the Consumer Dispute Settlement Agency (BPSK) in resolving Finance disputes (2) to find out what are the obstacles faced by the Consumer Dispute Settlement Agency (BPSK) in resolving Finance disputes. This research uses the type of empirical legal research, using a literature approach and research in the field. The sources of legal materials used are primary legal materials and secondary legal materials.The results of the study show that first, the Gorontalo City Consumer Dispute Settlement Agency (BPSK) has carried out its role, totaling 11 (eleven) of which is resolving consumer disputes in 3 (three) ways, namely mediation, conciliation and arbitration, opening consultations on consumer protection, if there is a violation the Consumer Protection Act (UUPK) the Consumer Dispute Settlement Agency (BPSK) is required to report to investigators, the Consumer Dispute Settlement Agency (BPSK) is required to receive complaints in writing or in writing, the Consumer Dispute Settlement Agency (BPSK) is tasked with conducting inspections and research related to consumer disputes, BPSK summons business actors suspected of violating the Consumer Protection Act (UUPK), the Consumer Dispute Settlement Agency (BPSK) has the right to present expert witnesses, witnesses or someone who is deemed to know of violations of the Consumer Protection Act (UUPK), examine the truth evidence, ascertaining whether or not there is a loss on the part of the consumer. The second research result is, What obstacles are faced by BPSK Gorontalo City in resolving Finance disputes in Gorotanlo City, these obstacles are divided into two parts, namely Internal and External. For internal ones, there is an inclusion of a standard clause, asking for help from investigators to summon business actors who do not want to attend invitations from the Gorontalo City Consumer Dispute Settlement Agency (BPSK), finally, financial constraints, namely the Gorontalo City Consumer Dispute Settlement Agency (BPSK) still cannot manage their funds in grants (self-managed).

The position of business actors and consumers often becomes unequal. Consumers are often the object of business activity to get the maximum profit by business actors and in the end the consumer becomes the aggrieved party. Cases of business actors harming consumers are found in BPSK Garut Regency Decision Number 18/Pdt.S-Brg/BPSK-GRT/IX/2020 regarding the sale of expired vegetable cheese wafers at the Asia Garut Department Store. In this case, there were legal issues regarding BPSK's authority and the judge's considerations in deciding compensation. The research objective is to determine whether BPSK has the authority to decide this case; and analyzing the judges' considerations in the BPSK Decision of Garut Regency Number 18/Pdt.S-Brg/BPSK-GRT/IX/2020 in deciding compensation. This study uses research methods with a normative juridical approach based on applicable legal concepts and theories. Based on the research results, it can be concluded 2 (two) things. First, the settlement process in this case has not provided legal certainty because the choice of dispute resolution method is directly determined by the Garut Regency BPSK Assembly and not based on the agreement of the parties to the dispute and this case should have been tried at the District Court after mediation failed. Second, the Garut Regency BSPK Assembly has not been right in deciding on compensation because the Assembly has confused the duties and responsibilities of producers and supermarkets and does not understand the intent of Article 52 letter (k) of the Consumer Protection Act.