Reconstructing Judicial Reasoning to Prosecute Corporate Extortion in Consumer Contracts Through the Noetic Tech Triumvirate

Abstract

This study examines the structural imbalance within consumer relations highlighting the detrimental impact of exoneration clauses strictly prohibited by Article 18 of Law Number 8 of 1999 concerning Consumer Protection. The research critically analyzes the legal reasoning embedded within Decision Number 772 Pdt.Sus BPSK 2025 PN Jkt.Brt regarding a utility meter replacement dispute. Employing a noetic doctrinal legal method, the investigation applies a triadic spiral model combining Bayani Burhani and Irfani epistemological nodes to evaluate both normative texts and empirical trial realities. The judicial review conducted by the West Jakarta District Court exclusively examined the formal administrative authority of the Consumer Dispute Resolution Agency without testing the substantive validity of the contested exoneration clause. This purely formalistic approach generated profound substantive, procedural, and protective legal gaps, stripping the resulting decision of moral legitimacy in safeguarding consumer dignity. To address this critical judicial failure, the study proposes a reconstructed model of legal consideration grounded in the Noetic Tech Triumvirate framework. The systemic integration of Data Dignity, Digital Conscience, and Digital Honesty mandates courts to actively assess structural inequalities and identify any abuse of circumstances acting as a fundamental defect of will during contract formation. This ethical analytical instrument guarantees that future judicial reasoning achieves formal legal validity while simultaneously preserving the absolute dignity of the human subject within modern administrative and digital ecosystems.

Keywords: Noetic Law, Exoneration Clause, Noetic Tech Triumvirate, Consumer Protection, Ratio Decidendi.