This article examines the operation of strict liability in Indonesian environmental civil law after the Job Creation Law, with particular attention to corporate activities involving hazardous and toxic materials and waste (B3). It uses normative legal research through statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. The analysis corrects an important point in the post-amendment debate: Article 88 continues to include activities that use B3, produce or manage B3 waste, and/or pose a serious threat to the environment, while the amendment removed the explicit phrase stating that liability applies without the need to prove fault from the operative text. Strict liability nevertheless remains part of Indonesian law because the article retains the formulation “bertanggung jawab mutlak,” and its application is further structured by Government Regulation No. 22 of 2021 and Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2023. The latter clarifies that plaintiffs must establish the hazardous activity, legally cognizable environmental loss, and causation, but need not prove fault. The study finds that the principal problem is therefore not the disappearance of strict liability, but normative friction among the statute, its implementing regulation, and judicial practice. A workable reconstruction requires harmonized interpretation, clear separation of fault from causation, science-sensitive evidentiary standards, and consistent use of environmental restoration as a civil remedy.