You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

January 7, 2021

Laos Issues Consumer Protection Decision for Telecommunications and Internet Services

Subscribe to Updates

In Laos, the legal means to achieve consumer protection is limited; the main piece of legislation, the Law on Consumer Protection No. 02/NA, dated June 30, 2010, enunciates a series of principles that are too general to be implemented effectively in practice. Given this context, on June 4, 2020, the Official Gazette of the Ministry of Justice in Laos published the Decision on Protection of Consumers Using Telecommunications and Internet Services no. 1061/MPT, dated May 25, 2020.

Although this decision is not exhaustive, it represents the country’s first attempt to ensure that its regulators address consumer protection issues in the telecommunications sector specifically. In particular, the decision provides a dispute resolution process involving the Ministry of Post and Telecommunications for disputes between telecommunications and internet service providers and their respective consumers. In addition, the decision regulates  sales prospecting techniques (e.g., cold calling) to be used for commercial purposes.

Resolution of Disputes between Consumers and Providers of Telecommunications and Internet Services

First of all, the decision recommends amicable resolution to disputes between service providers and their consumers who feel they have been treated unfairly (e.g., in invoicing issues) or find that the received goods or services are not of the expected quality. The decision instructs service providers in such instances to offer a solution to the dispute within seven working days of receiving a consumer’s complaint. Both parties must record meeting minutes on their negotiation of the service provider’s solution, if applicable, for their resolution to be formalized, and the meeting minutes, as well as the consumer’s complaint, must be prepared in written form (e.g., written documents, emails, etc.). If consumers are not satisfied with the amicable negotiations, they can file a complaint with relevant department under  the Ministry of Post and Telecommunications—which is to consider the complaint within 10 working days of receiving it.

Subsequently, the decision provides that the authority must liaise with the provider of telecommunications or internet services and require them to clarify the dispute within 10 working days. Upon receiving the service provider’s clarifications, the authority is required to report them to the consumer within seven working days. The decision empowers the authority to supervise the parties’ resolution of the dispute throughout this process, and summon both parties to find a solution to solve the dispute, if necessary.

Unsolicited Commercial Communications

The decision also takes seriously the nuisance that unsolicited commercial communications (e.g., phone calls or messages) can present to consumers, by restricting these communications as follows:

  • Such calls and messages are prohibited from 8:00 to 17:00 on Monday to Friday.
  • No more than 10 unsolicited commercial communications are allowed per month, per individual.
  • No more than two unsolicited commercial communications are allowed per day.

The decision elaborates that “any individual or legal entity” intending to use unsolicited commercial communications for their goods or services must receive the consent of the telecommunications or internet service provider of the prospects they plan to call. The decision does not offer guidance on how the relevant service provider’s consent may be obtained, but assigns a duty to the telecommunications and internet service providers to ensure that unsolicited communication commercials are made by authorized persons, and also to monitor the distribution of unsolicited commercial messages to ensure that these limits are not breached.

Consumers who receive unsolicited commercial communications can file a complaint with the Ministry of Post and Telecommunications and resolve subsequent disputes with the relevant service provider. The decision also notes that consumers can voice complaints or seek guidance via one of the following official hotlines:

  • 1510 – Ministry of Industry and Commerce
  • 1516 – Prime Minister’s Office
  • 156 – National Assembly

The Ministry of Industry and Commerce’s website (www.lcp.gov.la) is also expected to become an available channel for complaints in the future.

Sanctions

The decision does not provide clear sanctions for infringement of its provisions, merely stating that individuals or legal entities infringing its provisions are exposed to warnings, “education,” or compensation commensurate to the damages that are incurred. Usually, the authorities’ first warnings are official statements of a certain delay in bringing the infringer’s “illegal behaviors” into compliance with the country’s laws and regulations, while their second warnings are usually issued with heavier sanctions. “Education” (i.e., training programs) consists of the authorities’ explanation of the regulation that has been violated and guidance to implement it. If deemed necessary, the authorities will summon the infringer to participate in this process.

As for compensation, without further explanation we understand that the decision may refer to invoices related to services that are not rendered, or are poorly rendered. However, in practice the authorities may find it difficult to demand compensation from infringers in other situations (e.g., unsolicited commercial communications), because the decision does not provide guidance in this respect. Accordingly, if a consumer files a complaint against an infringer for unsolicited commercial communications, compensation for the violation cannot be guaranteed under the current regulations.

Conclusion

The decision is not exhaustive, and certain provisions will require additional information or practice before they can be implemented effectively. For example, the dispute resolution process between service providers and consumers would benefit from further clarification of the requirements for consumer complaints and meeting minutes. Also, a clearer explanation of the sanctions would make them easier to implement and deter infringement of the decision.

Nevertheless, this regulation is the first of its kind in Laos with an aim to resolve disputes between providers of telecommunications and internet services and consumers—even going beyond the direct actions of service providers themselves by addressing issues pertaining to spam email sent over their networks—and it provides a framework to restrict unfair treatment of consumers by these service providers. The publication of this decision is a welcome step in the ongoing development of Laos’ consumer protection regulatory regime, and may be refined further with future amendments.

Related Professionals

Industries

Consumer Products

Technology

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 4, 2026
Foreign business restrictions on telecommunications, treasury center businesses, and intragroup support services were eased when Thailand published the Ministerial Regulation Prescribing Service Businesses Not Requiring Permission for Foreign Business Operations (No. 5) B.E. 2569 (2026) in the Government Gazette on August 28, 2026. The ministerial regulation expands the categories of service businesses that foreign investors may operate without a foreign business license (FBL) under the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (FBA). Of particular relevance to the telecommunications, fintech, and technology sectors, the ministerial regulation exempts: Type 1 telecommunications licensees, which do not have their own networks; Treasury center businesses operated in accordance with Thailand’s exchange control regulations; and Certain intragroup administrative, human resources, and information technology management services. Telecommunications Services Foreign-owned businesses providing telecommunications services under a type 1 telecommunications license may now operate without obtaining an FBL. This may streamline market entry for qualifying telecommunications and digital infrastructure businesses. The exemption applies only to the FBA licensing requirement. Operators must continue to comply with applicable requirements under the Telecommunications Business Act and the regulations of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission, and the change does not affect foreign ownership restrictions applicable to type 2 or type 3 telecommunications businesses. Treasury Center Businesses The ministerial regulation also exempts qualifying treasury center businesses from the FBL requirement. This may facilitate centralized treasury functions in Thailand, including liquidity management, foreign exchange management, and intragroup funding arrangements. Treasury center operations remain subject to applicable requirements of the Bank of Thailand and other competent authorities. Intragroup Administrative, HR, and IT Services Certain administrative, human resources, and information technology management services provided between affiliated entities are also exempt, provided the relevant entities satisfy prescribed ownership or management criteria. The exemption is available where the service provider and recipient are related through specified ownership
Read More
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More
August 27, 2026
Franchising in Thailand has matured into a sizeable commercial sector, but the rules governing franchisor–franchisee relationships remain scattered across general legislation rather than consolidated in a dedicated franchise statute. In this environment, the decisions of the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) have emerged as valuable practical guidance. Thailand follows a civil-law system in which judicial and administrative decisions do not create binding precedent; however, past rulings are nonetheless influential. This article examines the most instructive recent TCCT decisions and distills the practical compliance considerations for franchisors and franchisees operating in Thailand. Postcontract Changes: Justified or Unfair? A recurring issue is whether a franchisor may alter the terms of engagement after contract execution. The TCCT has established that midterm modifications are not inherently unfair; the determinative factors are whether there was a reasonable business justification, adequate advance notice, and a transparent process. In a 2023 coffee franchise matter, for instance, the TCCT declined to find a violation where a franchisor increased raw material prices, noting the increase had been communicated in advance and supported by demonstrable cost pressures. A bubble tea franchise matter reinforces this principle. The TCCT found that postcontract mandatory purchases of branded syrup and flavorings were justified, as the agreement reserved the franchisor’s right to modify product requirements, the materials were sold at or below market prices, and the branded ingredients possessed distinctive qualities deemed essential to franchise quality. The complaint was dismissed, with the additional requirements characterized as a legitimate measure to preserve brand consistency. Considered together, these decisions indicate that post‑contract modifications will be evaluated against three criteria: (1) whether there is a legitimate business rationale, (2) whether adequate advance notice was provided, and (3) whether franchisees were treated equitably throughout the transition. Discriminatory Treatment: Are Renewals and Information Equal? A 2024 automotive dealership
Read More
August 25, 2026
Vietnam has enacted a new decree establishing administrative penalties for violations in the fields of cybersecurity and personal data protection. Decree No. 330/2026/NĐ-CP (Decree 330), issued and effective from August 19, 2026, provides a detailed sanctions framework for noncompliance with the Law on Personal Data Protection (including its implementing regulations under Decree 356/2025/ND-CP) and the Law on Cybersecurity, together with their guiding decrees. The issuance of Decree 330 signals that the practical grace period previously perceived by many businesses may be drawing to a close, with active regulatory enforcement in these areas expected to commence in earnest. Scope and Key Provisions Decree 330 has extraterritorial effect and applies to both onshore and offshore companies. For offshore companies, it applies to those that (1) provide telecommunications, internet, online-content, information-technology, cybersecurity, or cross-border services and (2) are involved in or related to the processing of personal data of Vietnamese citizens and certain other people of Vietnamese origin. Decree 330’s key provisions cover the following areas: Administrative penalties for violations relating to the protection of national security and public order in cyberspace, including the dissemination of unlawful, false, or unverified information. Sanctions for cyberattacks, unauthorized access, introduction of harmful code or programs, and failure to cooperate with specialized cybersecurity forces. Sanctions for personal data protection violations, such as consent, cross-border data transfers, impact assessments, breach notification, and data-subject rights, among others—with maximum fines of up to 5% of an organization’s preceding-year revenue for cross-border transfer violations, or up to VND 3 billion for other data-protection breaches. Personal Data Protection Penalties The key sanctions for personal data protection violations are as follows: Consent violations: Fines of up to VND 70 million (approx. USD 2,642), plus potential additional sanctions and remedial measures including irreversible deletion of personal data collected without consent and confiscation of
Read More