ANALISIS YURIDIS TERHADAP PRAKTIK PELANGGARAN PERSAINGAN USAHA TIDAK SEHAT OLEH PERUSAHAAN AQUA TERHADAP PERUSAHAAN LE MINERALE (Studi Putusan Nomor 22/KPPU-I/2016 jo Putusan Nomor 124/Pdt.G/KPPU/2018/PN Jkt. Sel jo Putusan Nomor 806 K/Pdt.Sus-KPPU/2019)

This study examines the alleged unfair business competition practices by PT Tirta Investama (Aqua) and its distributor, PT Balina Agung Perkasa, against its competitor PT Tirta Fresindo Jaya (Le Minerale). This study answers two problem formulations: (1) what are the legal considerations in the KPPU Decision and the South Jakarta District Court Decision regarding violations of exclusive agreements and Market Control; and (2) what are the legal implications of the Supreme Court's Cassation Decision on this case. The method used is normative juridical with a regulatory-statutory approach, case studies, and conceptual. The analysis is carried out through three main decisions: KPPU No. 22/KPPU-I/2016, PN No. 124/Pdt.G/KPPU/2018/PN.Jkt.Sel, and MA No. 806 K/Pdt.Sus-KPPU/2019. The results of the study show fundamental differences between the KPPU and the PN. The KPPU focused on substantive violations that harm competitors and consumers through the rule of reason, in accordance with the theory of market equilibrium. In contrast, the District Court emphasized formalistic procedural aspects, ignoring the substance of actual violations and contradicting the spirit of Law No. 5/1999 and Constitutional Court Decision No. 85/PUU-XIV/2016. The author believes the KPPU's considerations are more appropriate because they protect fair competition, while the District Court's approach focuses on the effectiveness of competition law. The Supreme Court's decision reinforced the KPPU's decision, confirming violations of Articles 15(3)b and 19(a,b) by the two companies, mandating payment of fines of Rp13.8 billion and Rp6.2 billion, respectively, and justifying exclusive practices. This decision strengthens the KPPU's authority, increases legal certainty, and sets a precedent for businesses to maintain fair competition. The author supports the Supreme Court's decision because it prioritizes substantive justice, protecting consumers and the market from the dominance of large players. Thus, this conclusion reflects the appropriate application of legal principles to maintain market equilibrium.