Infraloka Logo
← Back to Professional Blacklist
Professional Blacklist — personal dispute documentation
Thought Leadership

Fomo Employer Label “Tokopedia”: Case Record and Notice

Rahmat Wibowo·

Header illustration: Fomo employer label Tokopedia, case record and notice

Between 25 October 2023 and 6 May 2026, 40 comments in 4 Fomo threads about me carried the employer label “Tokopedia” on the commenting account's profile. This post records what those comments say and sends a short notice to Tokopedia. It is my account and my opinion, not a finding about any company or person, and I am not a lawyer.

What the record is

The source is my own evidence report, “Gelar Bukti Pencemaran Nama Baik Rahmat Wibowo,” which preserves 34 threads from Fomo (fomo.id), 2023 to 2026. On Fomo an account can display a free-text label next to its name. The label is chosen by the account holder and Fomo does not verify it, so a label such as “Tokopedia” does not show that the person works for Tokopedia, or that Tokopedia knew of or approved anything the account wrote.

I do not publish account names or personal names here. The thread and date are enough for anyone with access to find the comment.

What the labelled comments show

Most of the 40 comments are neutral or curious (people asking what happened), or are opinion about the dispute, such as saying that sending somasi to friends who offered advice was excessive. Several say their own comments were reposted to the subject's Instagram stories, and one asks for the account to be banned from Fomo. One comment, on 5 November 2023, is of a different kind.

The comments I consider abusive, with my rough translations:

“ini org minta dibinasain njir… gws dan hati2 Petrus ya RW” — 5 November 2023, report chapter 30; roughly: “this person is asking to be destroyed… get well soon, and watch out for Petrus, RW.” “Petrus” is Indonesian slang for the 1980s extrajudicial killings.

A veiled warning of this kind could be assessed under Article 483 (threat) or Articles 433 and 436 of the KUHP, as mapped in the case analysis, with the electronic-media increase in Article 441. Whether the elements are met is for counsel and the authorities.

Legal basis

The articles I rely on are quoted in full, in Indonesian with an English translation, in a separate post: Legal Basis: KUHP 2023 and the 2024 ITE Law. In short:

  • ITE Law, as amended by Law No. 1 of 2024: Article 27A (defamation by electronic means) with Article 45 paragraphs (4) to (7), including the complaint requirement and the exceptions for public interest and self-defence. It applied from 2 January 2024 until the KUHP took effect.
  • KUHP (Law No. 1 of 2023, in force since 2 January 2026): Articles 433 to 438 and 440 to 442 on defamation, slander and insult, and Article 483 on threats.
  • KUHP corporate liability: Articles 45 to 50 and 118 to 124. A company is answerable only where the conditions of Articles 46 to 48 are met, so a label on a personal profile is not enough on its own.

Notice to Tokopedia

This is a notice, not a demand. If Tokopedia has a conduct or social-media policy for staff, I ask that you:

  1. Check, using your own records, whether the account behind the comments quoted above belongs to a current or former member of your staff or community.
  2. If it does, review the comments against your own policy, in the way you would for any other complaint.
  3. Keep any records you hold about the matter, in case they are needed later.

I do not ask you to disclose who the person is. I will send any formal complaint through the proper channel and will not use this post to identify anyone.

Limits of this post

  • Employer labels on Fomo are self-reported and unverified. I have not confirmed that any labelled account belongs to a person employed by or connected to Tokopedia.
  • The counts come from my own parsing of the report's raw page captures. Some comments may be missing, duplicated or cut off, and deleted comments are included where the capture shows them.
  • Translations are mine and are approximate. The Indonesian text in the report is the source.
  • Most comments in these threads, from every label, were neutral. I have tried to describe Tokopedia's comments the same way.
  • This is my opinion and my account. It is not legal advice and not a finding that anyone committed an offence. A right of reply is open to Tokopedia and to any person mentioned.