BackgroundIn 2017, Indonesia initiated the amendment of its 11-year-old tobacco control regulation (PP 109/2012) to reduce smoking among youth, but the process was stalled. The proposed changes in the regulation include a full ban on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship (TAPS), increasing health warning label (HWL) size and regulating electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). This study analysed the arguments and actors for and against the PP 109/2012 amendment in online media articles.MethodContent analysis of 326 online articles reporting on the PP 109/2012 amendment published from 2018 to 2023, retrieved from the Tobacco Watcher platform. We coded articles for statements supporting or opposing the amendment (position statement), content of the arguments used to support (supporting argument) and oppose (opposing argument) the amendment, actors presenting the arguments and tobacco control measures. We iteratively reviewed and coded data and presented the frequency of categories.ResultsOf 332 position statements, 53.3% were against the amendment. The main categories of supporting arguments (N=1448) included smoking trends (21.1%), health implications (16.6%), science-based evidence (9.6%) and protecting the population (9.2%). Opposing arguments (N=1413) emphasised the tobacco farmers’ welfare (16.6%), impact on the industry (16.4%) and current regulation is sufficient (11.0%). Supporting actors were predominantly health-related entities and government officials (89.3%), while 62.1% of opposing actors included trade and Islamic groups, the tobacco industry and front groups. HWLs, e-cigarette/heated tobacco product regulation and TAPS were the main (77.8%) tobacco control measures mentioned in the proamendment arguments, while HWLs, TAPS and cigarette sale restrictions were the dominant (79.3%) tobacco control measures in anti-amendment arguments.ConclusionIndonesia’s tobacco control reform faced opposition by false claims primarily from industry allies, resulting in a 5-year delay in enactment. Future tobacco control media advocacy must address these claims and emphasise the alignment of economic interests with public health goals.