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​ 

August 4, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) could soon see some important changes, as a draft bill to amend the PDPA has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The draft amendment is currently in the public consultation phase, with comments accepted from July 16 to August 15, 2026. If enacted in its current form, the amendment would make three key changes: expanding the government exemption to cover anticorruption operations, introducing a statutory definition of “government agency,” and restructuring the lawful bases for personal data processing to align with international standards. Background The PDPA has encountered several enforcement challenges since its implementation, including three core problems identified by the bill’s sponsors: (1) the current exemptions for government agencies do not cover anticorruption and misconduct-prevention operations; (2) the PDPA lacks a clear statutory definition of “government agency,” causing legal uncertainty as to which entities are covered; and (3) the existing framework for lawful bases of data processing does not align with international standards—particularly the multiple-lawful-bases system in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—making compliance inflexible for both government and private sector entities. Expanded Government Exemption The current PDPA exempts government agencies performing duties related to national security (including fiscal security), public safety, anti-money laundering, forensic science, and cybersecurity. The proposed amendment adds “prevention and suppression of corruption and misconduct” to this list of exempted functions. This would allow anticorruption bodies—most notably the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which is identified as a directly affected party—to collect, use, and disclose personal data without being subject to PDPA requirements when carrying out their duties. New Statutory Definition of “Government Agency” Notably, while the current PDPA use the term “government agency” in several provisions, the term is not comprehensively defined, creating potential uncertainty as to its scope. The draft bill therefore
Read More
August 3, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) released for public comment its draft Notification on Digital Channel Security, which would significantly expand the scope and stringency of Thailand’s existing mobile banking security framework. If finalized in its current form, the draft notification would extend mandatory security requirements to credit card providers and credit providers, cover internet banking in addition to mobile applications, phase out SMS one-time passwords (OTPs) for transaction authentication, and introduce biometric verification requirements for high-value transactions. The public comment period is open through August 24, 2026. Background The BOT’s existing Mobile Banking Security Notification, issued in 2024, sets minimum security standards for financial institutions, specialized financial institutions (SFIs), and e-money providers, significantly reducing “money-draining app” fraud. However, fraudsters have since shifted to nonbank providers and internet banking channels, prompting the BOT to propose broader security requirements. Expanded Scope of Regulated Entities and Channels The existing Mobile Banking Security Notification covers only financial institutions, SFIs, and e-money providers offering mobile banking services. The draft expands coverage in two key areas: entities and channels. On the entity side, it adds credit card providers and credit providers that offer fund transfers to third parties at other financial service providers or that provide cash withdrawal services to individual retail customers. On the channel side, it broadens coverage to include internet banking in addition to mobile banking. Strengthened Customer Authentication The draft introduces enhanced authentication requirements in three areas: Service enrollment and device changes. Providers must implement rigorous identity verification, notify customers of enrollment results through out-of-band communication channels, and adopt risk-mitigation measures such as cooling-off periods and temporary transaction limits. Transaction-level authentication. Providers must use two-factor authentication for fund transfers, cardless ATM withdrawals, and transaction limit increases. Secure authentication factors. Key requirements include the following: “What-you-know” factors must
Read More
July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More