Indonesia has recently introduced a significant recalibration of its trade governance framework through Government Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia No. 3 of 2026 on the Administration of the Trade Sector (“GR 3/2026”). This regulation amends the long‑standing regime under Government Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia No. 29 of 2021 on the Administration of the Trade Sector (“GR 29/2021”).
The amendments aim to align the trade regulatory framework with the post‑cabinet restructuring of ministerial coordination, while also strengthening export–import control and enhancing legal certainty for business actors. More broadly, GR 3/2026 represents the Government’s effort to recalibrate trade governance to be more focused, effective, and responsive to evolving business dynamics. Against this backdrop, several key changes introduced under GR 3/2026 include the following:
Restructuring Trade Policy Coordination
Under the previous framework, Article 3 of GR 29/2021 established that export and import policy and control were solely under the authorization of the Ministry of Trade. Implementation included various regulatory instruments, such as technical verification or traceability measures, as part of export–import control.
Through the amendments introduced by GR 3/2026, Article 4 now provides that technical verification or traceability requirements for certain goods may be imposed based on criteria agreed upon in coordination meetings. These coordination meetings are now conducted by the ministry responsible for coordination and synchronization in the field of economic affairs for non‑food commodities, and by the ministry responsible for coordination in the field of food affairs for food commodities.
Importantly, this coordination mechanism applies not only to the initial imposition of verification requirements. Article 4 paragraph (4) of GR 3/2026 further stipulates that any modification to the list of certain goods regulated under a Ministerial Regulation must also be based on the outcome of a coordination meeting chaired by the relevant coordinating ministry according to commodity classification. Accordingly, both the determination and subsequent amendment of goods subject to verification fall within the same coordination framework. This structure indicates that the verification mechanism is no longer centralized under a single ministry, but has shifted to a coordination‑based approach among the relevant ministries, in accordance with the commodity classification.
Taken together, these amendments reflect a restructuring of the trade policy coordination architecture, particularly in relation to the mechanism for imposing and adjusting technical verification requirements, through a commodity‑based allocation of coordinating authority.
Retail and Franchise Rules Recalibrated
GR 3/2026 recalibrates Indonesia’s retail regulatory framework by explicitly deleting Article 98 paragraph (4) and paragraph (5) of GR 29/2021. Under the previous regime, Article 98 paragraph (4) required modern retail operators to comply with outlet ownership limitations, while Article 98 paragraph (5) delegated further regulation of such limitations to a Ministerial Regulation. This delegation formed the normative basis for Article 10 of Minister of Trade Regulation No. 18 of 2022 (“MTR 18/2022”), which imposed a maximum limit of 150 self‑owned outlets and required franchising, joint ventures, or profit‑sharing arrangements once the threshold was exceeded.
By removing Article 98 paragraph (4) and paragraph (5), GR 3/2026 eliminates the primary legal basis underpinning outlet ownership caps and mandatory franchising requirements.
Consequently, the ministerial delegation supporting Article 10 of MTR 18/2022 no longer derives from an explicit higher‑level normative mandate. This regulatory shift reflects a move toward greater flexibility in retail business structuring and reduces state‑imposed ownership constraints on modern retail operators.
Additional Criteria for Pyramid Schemes and Prohibited Goods/Services in Direct Selling
GR 3/2026 also inserts a new article, namely Article 51A, which explicitly regulates the category of pyramid schemes. Based on Article 51A, pyramid schemes are categorized as activities that:
- attract and/or obtain profits through membership or registration fees (recruitment) as a direct seller in an unreasonable manner;
- accept membership registrations as a direct seller under the same name and identity more than once;provide commissions and/or bonuses from membership fees or direct seller recruitment results; and/or
- provide commissions and/or bonuses from a marketing program that does not originate from the sale of goods.
Previously, these criteria appeared in Article 51 letters (f), (g), (h), and (i) of GR 29/2021. The insertion of this new article provides greater legal certainty regarding the limitations of activities that are included in pyramid schemes. As long as commissions and/or bonuses are given based on actual sales of goods, not sourced from contributions or recruitment alone, and are carried out in accordance with applicable distribution provisions, such activities are not included in the category of pyramid schemes.
In addition to clarifying the pyramid scheme criteria, GR 3/2026 further reinforces regulatory safeguards by specifying categories of goods and/or services that are prohibited from being distributed through the direct selling mechanism. Article 54 of GR 3/2026 adds additional types of prohibited goods, namely:
- goods whose distribution has been specifically regulated in accordance with statutory provisions;
- investment products; and
- goods whose ownership cannot be transferred.
Previously, Article 54 of GR 29/2021 only listed futures commodities as the category of goods prohibited from being marketed through the direct selling system. The addition of criteria in GR 3/2026 therefore expands the scope of goods that are prohibited from being marketed through the direct selling system.
Tightening of Administrative Sanctions for Violations by Business Actors
Regarding the regulation of administrative sanctions, GR 3/2026 provides additional, more diverse sanctions for business actors in trade activities, including export‑import activities, in Article 166. The article adds administrative sanctions in the form of a full suspension or limitation of business operations, whether physical or digital. If business actors violate trade regulations, whether domestically or internationally, as stipulated in GR 3/2026, they may be subjected to the administrative sanctions specified therein.
With these sanctions, the scope of action for business actors who violate the provisions is not only restricted in the physical world but also extends to the digital sphere, which has a broader reach.
Furthermore, the implementation of tiered sanctions is governed by Article 172 of GR 3/2026. Initially, businesses will receive a written warning. Should the business fail to implement necessary improvements, an administrative fine will be imposed. If the administrative fine remains unpaid by the conclusion of the designated sanction period, the consequence will be the revocation of the business permit.
The new regulation in GR 3/2026 indicates a direction toward increasingly stringent and adaptive trade regulations in response to digital challenges. This rule serves as a fundamental guideline for business actors, particularly those engaged in direct selling, e‑commerce, and import‑export activities, to reassess the businesses they operate and to pay close attention to existing legal compliance requirements.
Written by: Muhammad Destianto, Agdelia Meiva Azarine, Oxana Ferodova and Ni Made Ana Maharani
Disclaimer: The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.
Photo by Julius Silver: https://www.pexels.com/photo/white-water-boat-753331
Counsel