When Indonesia's Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (KPPU) handed down its January 2025 decision against Google LLC and Google Asia Pacific, it did something more interesting than slap a fine on a Big Tech platform. It joined a growing global consensus that the most defensible competition remedy in mobile app distribution is not to break gatekeepers up, force them to license their stores, or dictate commission rates — but simply to let developers choose how they get paid.
The ruling, the first major Indonesian antitrust action against a US platform under Law No. 5/1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition, found that Google had abused its dominant position by mandating Google Play Billing (GPB) and prohibiting developers from offering alternative payment methods on the Play Store in Indonesia. KPPU fined Google Rp 202.5 billion (roughly US$12.4 million) and ordered the company to permit User Choice Billing (UCB) for apps distributed to Indonesian users. Google has appealed to the Jakarta Commercial Court (Pengadilan Niaga), while KPPU continues to monitor compliance through 2025 and into 2026.
A Proportionate Remedy, Not a Punitive Spectacle
What distinguishes the KPPU decision from some other antitrust moves against app stores is its restraint. The authority did not order Google to allow side-loading of competing app stores, did not cap commissions outright, and did not invent a bespoke local regulator with sweeping ex ante powers. It applied an existing competition statute on its face, identified a specific tying conduct, and ordered a narrow behavioural remedy that mirrors what Google itself agreed to pilot in South Korea, India and the EU.
That matters. User Choice Billing is, at its core, a market-opening measure: it lets developers offer their own payment processor inside the app and pay Google a reduced service fee that reflects the value of distribution and security services without the payment-processing layer. It preserves Google's incentive to invest in Android and the Play Store while removing the coercive bundle that prevented price competition for in-app transactions. Developers — particularly Indonesia's growing cohort of digital-content, gaming and fintech startups — can finally negotiate with payment service providers like GoPay, OVO, DANA and ShopeePay rather than route every rupiah through Mountain View.
Where the Decision Sits in the Regional Arc
Indonesia's move does not happen in a vacuum. South Korea's 2021 amendment to the Telecommunications Business Act, signed by then-President Moon Jae-in, was the world's first law to require alternative in-app payment options. India's Competition Commission (CCI) imposed a fine of roughly Rs 936 crore (~US$113 million) on Google in October 2022 over Play Store practices, with the order upheld in substantial part by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. Japan enacted the Mobile Software Competition Act in 2024, targeting precisely the same gatekeeper conduct. And the EU's Digital Markets Act now requires designated gatekeepers — including Apple and Alphabet — to allow third-party payment systems on their platforms.
KPPU's ruling fits this pattern not because Indonesia is copying foreign regulators, but because the underlying economic problem — a vertically integrated platform tying its proprietary payment rail to access to a duopoly distribution channel — is structurally similar across jurisdictions. Convergent enforcement is a feature, not a bug; it signals that the conduct is genuinely anti-competitive rather than a parochial gripe.
The Pro-Innovation Case
Sceptics will argue that mandating UCB chills investment in Android and risks fragmenting the user experience. Three years of evidence from South Korea and the EU suggest otherwise. Developers who switch payment providers must still meet platform safety, refund and consumer-protection rules. The reduced service fee (Google has typically discounted by three to four percentage points where UCB is offered) is non-trivial for thin-margin app businesses but well within Google's continuing ability to monetise distribution.
For Indonesia specifically — Southeast Asia's largest digital economy, with a sizeable share of the region's roughly US$100 billion gross merchandise value across e-commerce and digital services — the upside is concrete:
- Lower friction for domestic e-wallets to scale inside the most-used app surface in the country.
- Better terms for Indonesian developers competing globally on price-sensitive content.
- A signal to foreign investors that Jakarta enforces clear, predictable competition law rather than discretionary industrial policy.
What KPPU Should Avoid Next
The harder challenge is what comes after the appeal. KPPU is running parallel inquiries into e-commerce conduct, including post-merger oversight of the Tokopedia/TikTok Shop combination finalised in early 2024. There is a real temptation, visible in several jurisdictions, to layer ever-more-specific behavioural rules onto platforms until competition law starts to resemble utility regulation.
Indonesia would do well to resist that drift. The KPPU's strength in the Google case was its willingness to apply Law No. 5/1999 to a specific tying practice with a specific, narrow remedy. If the Commercial Court upholds the decision on appeal, the right next steps are transparent compliance monitoring, public reporting of UCB uptake, and restraint about extending the same template to conduct that has not been shown to harm competition or consumers.
Conclusion
The KPPU's Google ruling is a useful data point for a global debate that too often swings between regulatory maximalism and platform exceptionalism. Indonesia chose the middle path: identify a real harm, apply existing law, order a market-opening remedy, and let competition do the rest. Other regulators in the region — and beyond — could do worse than to follow Jakarta's lead.