Reformulating Strict Liability and the Reversal of the Burden of Proof in Consumer Dispute Resolution

Abstract

Consumer protection law seeks to correct the imbalance between consumers and business actors, yet Indonesian law remains ambiguous about the relationship between strict liability and the reversed burden of proof. This article examines how Articles 19, 22, and 28 of Law Number 8 of 1999 interact with Article 163 of the HIR and Article 1865 of the Civil Code, using East Jakarta District Court Decision Number 535/Pdt.G/2022/PN.Jkt-Tim. The study applies normative legal research with case analysis and comparative references to developments in the United States and European Union. It finds that Indonesian consumer law does not establish absolute liability; instead, it combines liability subject to statutory defences with a limited evidentiary shift concerning fault. Judicial practice, however, returns the entire burden to consumers or transfers it wholesale to businesses, producing inconsistent protection and procedural unfairness. The article proposes a proportional three-stage model: consumers first establish transaction, loss, and plausible causation; business actors then rebut fault, defect, or responsibility through evidence within their control; and adjudicators assess all evidence. This model constitutes the study’s novelty because it separates substantive liability from evidentiary allocation while integrating consumer access to justice, business due process, and overall legal certainty.