In 2001, Indonesia established the Consumer Dispute Resolution Body (CDRB) based on the instruction of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) in 1999 to provide consumers protection in exercising their rights and to settle disputes quickly, simply, affordably, and professionally. Compared to the systems established by several countries that submit common law systems in which dispute-solving cases are terminated by the special courts called Small Claims Courts or Small Claims Tribunals, CDRB construction in Indonesia was quite vague. Although it uses arbitration terminology, the CDRB lacks an arbitration mechanism because, in practice, the body examines consumer disputes, working formally as a court. The root of this problem arose from the inconsistent regulation in the CPA. This article aims to review the CDRB construction problem compared to systems in other countries, to find recommendations for CPA amendments and discuss the future prospects. This study suggests two solutions: The first is the strict separation of litigation and non-litigation dispute resolution. The second is the formation of both online litigation and non-litigation systems. With these systems, the CDRB becomes a substitute institution, meaning that this body is the only system for small claim resolution for disputing parties.

2001 年，印度尼西亚根据 1999 年《消费者保护法》（CPA）的指示成立了消费者争议解决机构（CDRB），旨在为消费者行使权利提供保护，并以快速、简单、经济和专业的方式解决争议。与一些提交普通法体系的国家建立的体系相比，在这些体系中，解决纠纷的案件由称为小额索赔法院或小额索赔法庭的特别法庭终止，印度尼西亚的 CDRB 建设相当模糊。虽然它使用仲裁术语，但 CDRB 缺乏仲裁机制，因为在实践中，该机构审查消费者纠纷，正式作为法院工作。这个问题的根源在于注册会计师的监管不一致。本文旨在将 CDRB 建设问题与其他国家的系统进行比较，寻找 CPA 修订的建议并讨论未来的前景。本研究提出了两个解决方案：第一个是诉讼和非诉讼争议解决的严格分离。二是形成了网上诉讼和非诉讼制度。有了这些系统，CDRB 就成为了替代机构，这意味着该机构是解决争议方小额索赔的唯一系统。