Personal data protection has become an urgent legal issue in the digital era, especially with the increasing risks of data misuse. This study aims to analyze and compare the legal frameworks of Indonesia's Personal Data Protection Law No. 27 of 2022 and the United Kingdom's Data Protection Act 2018 in protecting the rights of data subjects. Using a normative juridical method with a comparative legal approach, this study examines key principles, enforcement mechanisms, and institutional structures in both legal systems. The research finds that while both laws emphasize individual data rights and accountability, the UK has a more established institutional framework (ICO) compared to Indonesia, which still lacks an independent supervisory authority. The novelty of this research lies in offering bilateral legal harmonization insights and adaptation strategies for Indonesia to meet international standards like GDPR while maintaining cultural and institutional relevance. The study concludes that Indonesia must strengthen its legal institutions and adopt a phased approach to regulatory convergence through establishing an independent data protection authority, capacity building, public legal awareness programs, and regional cooperation frameworks. It recommends a gradual harmonization roadmap starting from ASEAN PDP Framework implementation to eventual GDPR-style reforms to improve data protection effectiveness in the digital age.

A valid agreement creates a contract that gives rise to rights and obligations between the parties, and if one party does not fulfill its obligations, it can be declared to be in default. Default can be interpreted as the failure to fulfill or negligent in carrying out obligations as stipulated in the agreement made by the creditor and debtor. One example of a case of default regarding debts involving the Deputy Regent of Sidoarjo, Subandi, who borrowed IDR 1 billion from Darmiati Tansilong. The Supreme Court rejected Subandi's appeal (Decision No. 1609/K/Pdt/2022) and stated that he was in default. The Supreme Court's decision emphasized that the default committed by Subandi poses a risk in the form of debt repayment, paying profit sharing for property business development and the total interest that has been promised.