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 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 10, 2026
On July 31, 2026, Thailand’s Big Data Institute (BDI) launched a public consultation on the principles of a proposed new data-sharing law, with comments accepted until August 31, 2026. If enacted, the law would establish Thailand’s first comprehensive framework for government and private-sector data sharing, creating a systematic, secure, and transparent regime to support analytics, policymaking, research, and innovation. Central Data-Sharing Platform The draft law establishes a central system for data sharing, managed by the BDI. Government agencies would be required to connect to the BDI’s Data Integration and Intelligence Platform (also referred to as D2), in accordance with the BDI’s rules and procedures. Five Dimensions of Data Sharing The draft law covers five key types of data sharing between government (G), businesses (B), and consumers (C): G2B: Private organizations may request government data specifically for research and development purposes. The BDI will assess the applicant’s data governance, security, and privacy capabilities whether such measures meet prescribed standards before forwarding the request to the relevant government agency within 90 days. Any dispute may be escalated to a newly established Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for final determination. G2G: Government agencies may request data from other agencies through the central system. The data-holding agency must respond within 90 days, taking legality, necessity, proportionality, public interest, and personal data protection into account. Disputes may be referred to the Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for adjudication. B2G: In emergency situations involving public safety, economic security, or disaster response, the Minister of Digital Economy and Society may require private entities to provide data through the central data-sharing system. Government agencies must specify the data requested, demonstrate its necessity and expected benefits, and request only data reasonably available to the data holder. Requests for personal data must be limited to the minimum amount necessary. B2C: Royal decrees may
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) recently released draft guidance on records of processing activities (ROPA) for personal data controllers and processors under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The draft guidance, which was presented to the public on July 7, 2026, addresses both controller records of collection, use, and disclosure of personal data and processor records of processing activities carried out on behalf of controllers. If implemented, the guidance will significantly expand organizational expectations for ROPA preparation, maintenance, and use across all sectors. Key Takeaways The draft guidance contains several important implications for organizations subject to the PDPA: ROPA reframed as a core accountability tool. The guidance elevates ROPA from an administrative record to a central accountability mechanism, connecting controller duties with recordkeeping obligations. ROPA as a source for privacy notices and governance documents. ROPA should serve as the primary source for privacy notices and align with consent management, retention schedules, DPIAs, incident response plans, and vendor contracts. Expanded scope across all activities. ROPA must cover all processing activities across the organization—including security, finance, HR, and external contractors—with correct controller or processor classification for each. Ongoing maintenance and auditability. ROPA must be updated for any change to systems, purposes, or processors, reviewed at least annually, and maintained with version control and a designated owner. Enhanced vendor, processor, and cross-border transfer requirements. Organizations must document all processors, external recipients, and cross-border transfers, specifying purposes, access scope, and destination countries. Linkage with risk assessment, DPIAs, and LIAs. ROPA should assign risk levels to each activity and identify when data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) or legitimate interests assessments (LIAs) are required, functioning as a risk-management tool. ROPA and data breach readiness. Incomplete ROPA can delay breach response and notification. Organizations should map data flows, vendors,
Read More
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