Digital Contracts Create Efficiency but Also
Inequality
The rise of e-commerce, marketplaces, and algorithm-based service platforms has transformed how contracts are formed. Digital systems enable fast, cross-border transactions and allow micro, small, and medium enterprises to access international markets more easily. However, the study finds that this transformation has created serious bargaining power imbalances. Platform providers typically draft standard agreements in advance, leaving users with only two choices: “agree” or “do not use the service.” This structure limits negotiation and weakens the principle of equal consent. Normatively, Article 1338 of the Indonesian Civil Code affirms freedom of contract, stating that legally formed agreements bind the parties as law. In digital practice, however, this freedom often becomes formal rather than substantive.
Research Method: Normative Legal Analysis
The researchers applied a normative juridical method by reviewing positive legal norms, contract law doctrines, legal principles, and relevant court decisions. The analysis focused on the principle of justice and balance in digital commercial contracts. Through qualitative legal reasoning, the study evaluates whether Indonesian contract law has achieved substantive justice in the digital era.
Key Findings: Substantive Justice Not Yet
Realized
The research identifies several structural problems:
- Imbalance of bargaining power - Digital platform operators control technology, data, and contractual terms, while users lack negotiation space.
- Widespread use of exculpatory clauses - Standard clauses often exempt platforms from liability, contradicting the principle of good faith and consumer protection laws.
- Normative gaps in regulation - The ITE Law primarily regulates formal validity of electronic transactions but does not comprehensively address contractual justice or algorithmic accountability.
- Weak integration of distributive justice principles- Current legal frameworks emphasize formal legality rather than equitable distribution of rights and obligations.
The study stresses that freedom of contract
must not be interpreted as absolute. Instead, it must be balanced with public
order, morality, and good faith.
Legal Implications: Courts Begin Shifting
Toward Substantive Justice
The study notes a progressive judicial trend in Indonesia. In Supreme Court Decision No. 822 K/Pdt/2019, the Court invalidated standard clauses that removed business actors’ liability for consumer losses. This decision marks a shift from formal justice based solely on contract text toward corrective and distributive justice that protects weaker parties.
Author Profiles
Karolina Sitepu - Legal academic, Universitas Tjut Nyak Dhien
Medan.
Jimi Anugerah Gea - Legal scholar, Universitas Tjut Nyak Dhien Medan.
Ariston Halawa - Lecturer and researcher in contract law.
San Putra Harapan Gulo - Legal academic focusing on commercial law.
Senius Zega - Researcher in trade and contract law.
Source
Karolina Sitepu, Jimi Anugerah Gea, Ariston
Halawa, San Putra Harapan Gulo, and Senius Zega. Reconstruction of the
Principle of Justice of Contract Law against the Imbalance of the Parties in
Commercial Contracts. International Journal of Law Analytics, Vol. 4 No. 1, 2026, pp.
61–78.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.59890/ijla.v4i1.166
URL: https://slamultitechpublisher.my.id/index.php/ijla
0 Komentar