Indonesia governs AI with a handful of binding rules resting on a much larger base of ethics circulars, sector codes, and drafts still working through the State Secretariat. This site maps those rules, watches whether the binding ones get followed, and tracks the court cases that turn on AI.
Tap a marker
Five are drafts in the pipeline, shown dashed; the rest are in force, adopted, or assessments. Among the binding rules, the binding and principles corner stays empty: where the law binds, it also prescribes. The draft Perpres are the first instruments pointing into it.
Instruments are stacked by how much force they carry, from binding law with sanctions down to voluntary regional principles. That ordering is the argument: almost everything still sits below the binding line. Each entry links to its source where we've verified one; the rest are on the way.
The Observatory monitors the AI-specific obligations in Indonesian law that are actually binding on operators. Today there is exactly one: Article 47 of Permendag 19/2026. That scarcity is the point. It is the first and so far only place where the law says shall rather than should.
What operators must do when they deploy AI. Three of the six are visible from outside the company: disclosure, internal governance, and a complaint channel. Those are the ones the Observatory checks below.
AI may be used, provided the use conforms to applicable law. Deployment now carries legal responsibility.
The operator is legally responsible for its AI; outcomes cannot be blamed on the system itself.
Must inform or label consumers when goods, content, recommendations or promotions are AI-driven. Core duty tracked here.
AI-mediated information must be truthful, clear, accurate and accountable.
Platforms must maintain AI governance proportionate to the risk profile of their deployment.
A mechanism to challenge AI outputs and receive a substantive response.
Three of Article 47's six duties can be checked from the outside: whether consumers are told AI is in use, whether the operator keeps an internal AI policy proportionate to its risk, and whether there is a channel to complain about AI-related harm. Each operator below is checked against those three. Entries record observed practice on a given date, not a verdict of compliance. Assessed companies are open to tap; the rest are marked Coming soon until they are reviewed.
Article 47 carries no direct sanction, so this monitor does not label any operator "non-compliant." It records what is publicly observable on a given date, with evidence, and lets readers draw their own conclusions.
This is an independent research project and does not constitute legal advice.
A running record of court cases and investigations in Indonesia where AI is part of the facts. Most of it is deepfake fraud and synthetic sexual content, now joined by a civil tort over an AI face-swap and a divorce ruling on how to authenticate digital evidence. Five rulings are decided; the rest sit at investigation or prosecution.
Tap a case to read the facts, the legal basis, and where it stands. Status reflects the most recent stage we have on record.
Indonesian courts are deciding these cases without any AI-specific law, leaning on the Criminal Code, the ITE Law, the PDP Law, the Civil Code, and, in the election case, constitutional principle. Most turn on the substance of synthetic media even though no settled way to authenticate it yet exists, though one recent ruling has begun to require digital forensics. As of June 2026 Indonesia still has no standalone deepfake or AI-content statute.
Compiled from a June 2026 review of public sources, with status noted per case.
Each entry links to a traceable source: an official decision where one exists, otherwise credible reporting. This is a record of reported proceedings, not legal advice.
Indonesia's approach to AI is real but unstructured: a thin layer of binding rules over a much thicker layer of ethics circulars, codes of conduct, and drafts. Reviewing it means piecing the picture together from scattered instruments, most of which can't be enforced.
It does three things. It maps the governance structure as an enforceability spectrum, with every instrument linked to its source, so the whole picture reads at a glance. It runs an observatory on the narrow band that actually binds anyone, starting with Article 47 of Permendag 19/2026, to see whether a binding rule with no sanction behind it changes what platforms do. And it tracks the court cases where AI is part of the facts.
A comparative thread runs alongside: where Indonesia states a labelling duty without a method, jurisdictions such as China have already operationalised one. That comparison is where the next round of reform has to work.
Seen a platform using AI, with or without a disclosure label? Send a link and a screenshot, and it will be reviewed before publishing.
Submit an observationWhen a platform uses AI, the job of governing that use falls on it, and so does the choice of how. That is private ordering: rules written and enforced by companies, not by the state. It can move fast, and from the outside it is hard to see. Most people never learn how a platform writes or applies its own AI rules, and they get no say in them.
This site exists to change that. It records how each platform governs its own AI and checks that practice against Article 47 of Permendag 19/2026, so that decisions made inside a company become visible to the public.