Main Article Content

Abstract

This study analyzes the KPPU Decision Number 03/KPPU-L/2020 pertaining to the case of predatory pricing in South Kalimantan’s cement industry. In this particular case, the Reported is a company that enters the cement market in 2015, and rapidly increases its market share while the other competitors experience a decline. The analysis reveals that the evidence supports the proof of predatory pricing through the Pre-Cost Test and Recoupment Test approaches, and also by implementing the Rule of Reason approach. This predatory pricing practice has a negative impact that widespreads and lessens fair competition, harms consumers, inhibits innovation, and potentially creates monopoly. A sharp decline of price forces other competitors to exit the market and the rest to experience financial loss. The implication is not only suffered by business actors, but also by the economy as a whole. The government and supervisory bodies have to supervise, apply effective test, and create collaboration between business actors, the government, and consumers in order to maintain fair competition. The importance of the Rule of Reason approach is also emphasized to prevent excessive scrutiny towards legitimate business practices. It is expected that these steps will be able to create a business environment that is just, innovative, sustainable, and one that protects consumers and public interest altogether.
Keywords: Analysis, Negative Impact, Cement Industry, Predatory Pricing, KPPU Decision


Abstrak
Studi ini menganalisis Putusan Nomor 03/KPPU-L/2020 tentang kasus predatory pricing di industri semen Kalimantan Selatan. Dalam kasus ini, terlapor adalah perusahaan baru yang memasuki pasar semen pada 2015, dengan cepat meningkatkan pangsa pasarnya sementara pesaing mengalami penurunan. Analisis mengungkapkan bahwa bukti mendukung pembuktian predatory pricing melalui pendekatan pre-cost test dan recoupment test, dengan menerapkan pendekatan rule of reason. Praktik predatory pricing ini memiliki dampak negatif yang meluas, termasuk penurunan persaingan sehat, merugikan konsumen, menghambat inovasi, dan potensial menciptakan monopoli. Penurunan harga yang tajam mengancam pesaing keluar dari pasar dan pesaing lain mengalami penurunan pendapatan. Implikasinya tidak hanya pada pelaku usaha, tetapi juga ekonomi secara keseluruhan. Pemerintah dan lembaga pengawas harus melakukan pengawasan, menerapkan uji efektif, serta kolaborasi antara pelaku usaha, pemerintah, dan konsumen untuk menjaga persaingan sehat. Pentingnya pendekatan rule of reason juga ditekankan untuk menghindari penilaian berlebihan terhadap praktik bisnis yang sah. Diharapkan langkah-langkah ini mampu menciptakan lingkungan bisnis adil, inovatif, dan berkelanjutan, melindungi kepentingan konsumen serta masyarakat secara menyeluruh.
Kata Kunci: analisis, dampak negatif, industri semen, predatory pricing, Putusan KPPU.

Keywords

Analysis Negative Impact Cement Industry Predatory Pricing KPPU Decision

Article Details

How to Cite
Satrio Puruhito, M. A., & Siti Anisah. (2024). The Negative Impact of Predatory Pricing Practice to Fair Competition (The Study of KPPU Decision Number 03/KPPU-L/2020). Journal of Private and Commercial Law, 1(1), 66–88. https://doi.org/10.20885/JPCOL.vol1.iss1.art4

References

  1. Andi Fahmi Lubis Etc, "Hukum Persaingan Usaha," Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (KPPU), 2nd Print, 2017.

  2. Fandy Tjiptono, Strategi Pemasaran, 4th Print, yogyakarta, 2017.

  3. Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha, Pedoman Pelaksanaan Pasal 20 Tentang Jual Rugi (Predatory Pricing), Central Jakarta, 2009.

  4. L. Budi Kagramanto, Mengenal Hukum Persaingan Usaha, Surabaya: Laros, 2015.

  5. Louis Kaplow, Recoupment And Predatory Pricing Analysis, Oxford University Press, 2018.

  6. Mukti Fajar & Yulianto Achmad, Dualisme Penelitian Hukum Normatif dan Empiris, Pustaka Pelajar, Yogyakarta, 2010.

  7. Siti Anisah, Persaingan Usaha, 1st Print, FH UII Press, Yogyakarta, 2022.

  8. Suhasril Mohammad Taufik Makarao, Hukum larangan praktik monopoli dan persaingan usaha tidak sehat di Indonesia, Bogor, Ghalia Indonesia, 2010.

  9. Alem Savier,Teddy Prima Anggriawan, Fenomena Predatory pricing Dalam Persaingan Usaha Di E Commerce (Studi Kasus Antara Penetapan Tarif Bawah Antara Aplikasi Indrive Dan Gojek), Jurnal Ilmiah Wahana Pendidikan, July 2023.

  10. Andi Hamzah, Dampak Kegiatan Jual Rugi (Predatory pricing) yang Dilakukan Pelaku Usaha dalam Perspektif Persaingan Usaha, Jurnal Dinamika Hukum, vol. 12, no. 2, 2012.

  11. Christian Barthel, Predatory pricing Policy under EC and US Law, Faculty Of Law University Of Lund, 2002.

  12. DIRECTORATE FOR FINANCIAL AND ENTERPRISE AFFAIRS COMPETITION COMMITTEE, Predatory Foreclosure., 2004.

  13. Joseph P. Griffin, Valentine Korah, An Introductory Guide to EEC Competition Law and Practice, Volume 15, Issue 4, Article 11, 1991

  14. Lukman Haryanto Sianipar, Lesson Sihotang, Tulus Siambaton, Tinjauan Hukum Praktik Jual Rugi Dalam Industri Retail Berdasarkan Uu No.5 Tahun 1999 Tentang Larangan Praktik Monopoli Dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat (Studi Pada Swalayan Maju Bersama Glugur), Volume 07 Number 03, December 2018.

  15. Ni Luh Putu Diah Rumika DewiI Dewa Made Suartha, Penerapan Pendekatan Rules Of Reason dalam Menentukan Kegiatanpredatory pricing yang Dapat Mengakibatkan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat, Journal, Vol 5 No 2, 2017.

  16. R.H. Koller, When is Pricing predatory, 24 The Antitrust Bulletin, 1979.

  17. Rezmia Febrina, Dampak Kegiatan Jual Rugi (Predatory pricing) Yang Dilakukan Pelaku Usaha Dalam Perspektif Persaingan Usaha, JURNAL SELAT Volume. 4 Number. 2, May 2017.

  18. Simge Şaşmaz, PREDATORY PRICING IN COMPETITION LAW, Sabancı University, Fall 2009.

  19. Wahyu Buana Putra, Teddy Prima Anggriawan, Akibat Hukum Praktik Jual Rugi Semen Conch Dalam Persaingan Usaha Industri Semen Di Indonesia,Jurnal Hukum, POLITIK DAN ILMU SOSIAL (JHPIS) Vol. 2, No. September 3rd 2023.

  20. Indonesia Competition Commission, Pedoman Pelaksanaan Pasal 20 tentang Jual Rugi (Predatory pricing), Central Jakarta, 2009.

  21. KPPU Decision Number 1 of 2019

  22. KPPU Decision Number 6 of 2011 about the Guideline on Article 20 of the Law Number 5 of 1999 

  23. Law Number 5 of 1999.

  24. Accessed from https://www.cnnindonesia.com/ekonomi/20210116131926-92-594549/kppu-denda-anak-usaha-semen-china-rp22-m-gara-gara-jual-rugi on August 18th 2023 At 19:20.

  25. Accessed from https://www.simulasikredit.com/apa-itu-predatory-pricing-strategi-penetapan-harga-predatory/ on August 23rd 2023 At 09:50.

  26. Pengelola Web Direktorat SMP, Kegiatan Ekonomi: Produksi, Distribusi, dan Konsumsi, Direktorat Sekolah Menengah Pertama, accessed from https://ditsmp.kemdikbud.go.id/kegiatan-ekonomi-produksi-distribusi-dan-konsumsi/,on June 6th 2023, at 22:31 Western Indonesia Time.

  27. Putusan KPPU atas PT Conch South Kalimantan Cement Dikuatkan Mahkamah Agung, KPPU, accessed from https://kppu.go.id/blog/2021/08/putusan-kppu-atas-pt-conch-south-kalimantan-cement-dikuatkan-mahkamah-agung/ on June 6th 2023, at 22:34 Western Indonesia Time.

  28. Tugas dan Wewenang, KPPU, accessed from https://kppu.go.id/tugas-dan-wewenang/, on June 8th 2023, at 17:04.

  29. KPPU Decision No. 03/KPPU-L/2020.