Bancassurance is a form of partnership between banks and insurance companies that is authorized by law, however, it does not rule out the possibility of monopolistic practices and unfair business competitions. The Home Loan product (Kredit Pemilikan Rumah) of PT Bank Rakyat Indonesia (PT BRI) obligates the debtors to acquire insurance from the consortium of PT Asuransi Jiwa Bringin Jiwa Sejahtera (PT Bringin) and PT Heksa Eka Life Insurance (PT Heksa). Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (KPPU) concluded that the product and its partnership, violates Law No. 5 Year 1999 concerning The Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Law 5/1999) especially Article 15 section (2) and Article 19 letter a. The Supreme Court has issued its decision which differs from the decision of KPPU; however, there is a dissenting opinion by a Supreme Court member that presided over the case. The purpose of this research is to get a deeper understanding on Article 15 section (2) and Article 19 letter a of Law 5/1999 and to analyze the legal reasonings of the Supreme Court Verdict No. 703/Pdt.Sus-KPPU/2015. The type of research that the Author uses is normative research by using secondary data that is analyzed by qualitative analysis technique, and using the statute approach and the case approach. The outcome of this research indicates that the Supreme Court concludes that the exception that is regulated on Article 50 letter A of Law 5/1999 is applied in this case, whereas the reasonings of a member of the Supreme Court is contradictory towards the verdict.