Under the framework of the new “Personal Data Protection Act” (PDPA), the role of the competent authority has shifted from passively receiving complaints to becoming an active supervisory body. Many enterprises mistakenly believe that as long as no personal data leak occurs, they will not attract the attention of the competent authority. However, according to Article 22 of the PDPA amended in 2025 and the newly announced draft “Regulations on the Operation of Inspections on Non-Government Agencies’ Implementation of the Personal Data Protection Act” (hereinafter referred to as the Draft Inspection Regulations), the threshold for the competent authority to initiate administrative inspections has been significantly lowered, and it possesses clear screening criteria.
This article will analyze the inspection powers of the competent authority, the logic behind targeting specific entities, and the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for inspections that enterprises should establish.
1. Initiation Threshold: No Evidence of Violation Needed, Just “Deemed Necessary”
According to Paragraph 1, Article 22 of the new Act, there are two requirements for the competent authority to initiate an administrative inspection:
- Risk of Violation: Where there are already signs of violation or a complaint has been filed.
- Deemed Necessary to Inspect Implementation: This is the key reinforcement of the new Act. Even if an enterprise has not experienced an incident, the competent authority may proactively initiate an inspection to verify compliance (e.g., whether a Security Maintenance Plan has been established).
In other words, administrative inspections will become a routine supervisory tool, not just an investigative procedure preceding punishment.
2. Who Gets Targeted? Screening Criteria for Annual Inspection Plans
The competent authority has limited resources and cannot inspect every enterprise. According to Articles 2 and 3 of the Draft Inspection Regulations, the competent authority will formulate an “Annual Inspection Plan” and comprehensively evaluate the following factors to select inspection targets:
- Scale and Type: The organizational scale of the enterprise, and the quantity and type of personal data held (e.g., whether special personal data is involved).
- Management and Technology: The technical methods used by the enterprise to collect, process, or use personal data, and the status of internal management.
- Incident Record: The situation and frequency of past personal data incidents.
- Inspection History: The frequency and results of inspections received over the years.
- External Factors: The government’s policy focus for the year, fields related to the daily life of the public (such as e-commerce, finance, transportation), and international trends in personal data protection.
If an enterprise belongs to an industry that “holds large amounts of member data,” “has experienced cybersecurity incidents,” or is “closely related to the public’s daily life (e.g., retail, digital services),” the probability of being included in the annual priority inspection list is extremely high.
Based on our firm’s practical experience, as early as 2025, before the new Act was fully implemented, the Ministry of Economic Affairs had already launched intensive administrative inspections on several large retailers, indicating that the supervisory pressure on enterprises holding large amounts of consumer data is continuously intensifying.
3. Inspection Procedure: A “One-Month Notice” vs. Possibility of Surprise Inspection
According to Article 6 of the Draft Inspection Regulations, for routine inspections conducted based on the annual plan, the competent authority should in principle notify the enterprise in writing one month prior to the inspection date, giving the enterprise a preparation period to organize documents and review processes.
However, if the inspection is based on a “risk of violation” (e.g., occurrence of a major data leak, risk of destruction of evidence), the competent authority may still, under the authorization of the Administrative Procedure Act and Article 22 of the PDPA, arrive directly on-site to preserve evidence without prior notice.
4. On-Site Powers: The Corporate Duty to Cooperate
Once inspection personnel arrive (which may include staff from the competent authority and accompanying IT or legal professionals), their powers are quite extensive. According to Paragraphs 1 to 3 of Article 22 of the new Act, inspection personnel may take the following actions:
- Demand Explanation: Require enterprise personnel to provide explanations or relevant supporting documents.
- Enter Premises: Enter office premises or server rooms to conduct inspections.
- Seize or Copy: Seize or copy personal data or files that may be confiscated or serve as evidence (e.g., backing up hard drives, sealing host computers).
Enterprises have a duty to cooperate and must not evade, obstruct, or refuse without justifiable cause. Refusal without justifiable cause is punishable by an administrative fine of NT$20,000 to NT$200,000 under Article 49 of the new Act, and the competent authority may enforce the inspection.
5. Recommendation: Corporate Inspection SOP
Facing administrative inspections that may arrive at any time, we recommend that enterprises establish the following response mechanisms:
- Designate a Single Point of Contact (SPOC): Clearly designate the General Counsel, CISO, or dedicated personnel as the inspection response window to avoid erroneous statements by unrelated personnel.
- Prepare the “Security Maintenance Plan”: This is “Document No. 1” that inspectors must see. Enterprises should keep the latest Security Maintenance Plan documents, risk assessment reports, and execution records (e.g., training sign-in sheets, meeting minutes) ready at all times.
- Drill the Inspection Process: Simulate inspection scenarios to ensure the IT department knows how to cooperate in retrieving logs or system parameters, while ensuring that trade secrets are appropriately isolated from the personal data under inspection to avoid unnecessary information leakage.
Our firm possesses extensive experience in corporate personal data legal affairs and compliance implementation. If your company has any questions regarding simulation drills for administrative inspections, formulation of response strategies, or preparation of inspection documents, please feel free to contact us at any time. Our team of professional lawyers will provide you with precise legal analysis and solutions.
Special Note: The draft subsidiary regulations mentioned in this article (such as the Regulations on Inspection Operations, etc.) are pre-announcement versions released by the Preparatory Office of the Personal Data Protection Commission between January and February 2026. As of the time of writing, they are in the public comment phase, and the official provisions may be further adjusted based on feedback from various sectors. Readers are advised to stay updated on the latest regulatory developments.
