Keabsahan Klausula Baku dan Pilihan Forum Asing Marketplace bagi Perlindungan Konsumen

Abstract

On online marketplaces, consumer contracts are not negotiated but imposed as standard-form clauses on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, producing extreme bargaining asymmetry. Exoneration clauses, unilateral amendment clauses, and choice-of-law and choice-of-forum clauses designating foreign jurisdictions frequently shelter behind freedom of contract and party autonomy, which are not absolute. This article tests the validity of such clauses against the prohibition of standard clauses under consumer protection law, the principles of contract law, and the limitation of autonomy through public order (ordre public) and mandatory rules in private international law, and then formulates a prospective arrangement. The method is normative-doctrinal, using statutory, conceptual, case, and limited comparative approaches; Indonesian law is the primary object, while the European Union regime and the doctrine of unconscionability serve as functional mirrors. The testing yields a graded diagnostic: exoneration clauses are null and void and a foreign forum is set aside for stripping access to justice, whereas foreign choice of law is confined to the mandatory protective core. A limited status for amendment with reasonable notice and for proportionate limitation of liability is offered as the author's construction, while the operator's qualification as an active business actor defeats the mere-conduit defense. The central finding is that reactive civil nullity proves illusory, so protection requires a hybrid architecture combining nullity with proportionate administrative supervision bound by the principle of legality, through pre-approval of clauses before publication. The contribution is doctrinal-constructive with epistemic humility: the parameters are normative and deliberately designed to be testable against future jurisprudence.