Summary of the 2025 Amendments to the Whistleblower Protection Act

Author: Tsubasa Watanabe

Download full text (PDF)

Publisher: Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu

Journal / Book: NO&T Japan Legal Update No.51 (December, 2025)

Reference

Practice Areas

Keyword

*Please note that this newsletter is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. In addition, it is based on information as of its date of publication and does not reflect information after such date. In particular, please also note that preliminary reports in this newsletter may differ from current interpretations and practice depending on the nature of the report.

Introduction

On June 4, 2025, Japan amended the Whistleblower Protection Act, further enhancing protections for whistleblowers while strengthening sanctions for violations and expanding administrative enforcement powers. This is the first amendment in five years since the 2020 revision. Notably, the amendment introduces a clause providing that any dismissal or disciplinary action taken within one year following a whistleblowing report shall be presumed to have been taken in response to that report. This change is likely to create significant tension for corporate responses to whistleblowing in Japan and is expected to materially increase the burden on companies in handling such reports.

The effective date will be set by Cabinet Order within 18 months from the date of amendment; while this date is not yet fixed, the amendments will take effect no later than sometime in 2026. Compliance and whistleblowing teams in each company should familiarize themselves with the amendments and assess, before the effective date, whether their internal frameworks and practices conform to the revised requirements.

This article provides a brief overview of the amendments and practical notes considering them.

Summary of the 2025 amendments※1

(i) Enhanced protections for whistleblowers

(a) Expansion of the scope of whistleblowers protected by law: The scope of “whistleblowers” is expanded to include freelancers in an active contract with an enterprise , as well as those whose contract has terminated less than one year prior to making a report. Termination of a services contract and other unfavorable treatment on the grounds of whistleblowing are prohibited (Article 2, paragraph 1, item 3).
(b) Prohibition of acts that hinder whistleblowing: Enterprises are prohibited, without just cause, from engaging in acts that hinder or obstruct whistleblowing, including requesting workers and others to agree not to make whistleblowing reports. Any legal act in violation of this prohibition is void (Article 11-2).
In addition, enterprises are prohibited, without just cause, from engaging in acts intended to identify a whistleblower (Article 11-3).
(c) Stronger relief against unfavorable treatment due to whistleblowing: Any dismissal or disciplinary action taken within one year after a report shall be presumed to be made due to whistleblowing (Article 3, paragraph 3). In other words, the burden of proof in civil litigation is shifted from whistleblowers to companies: where a dismissal or disciplinary action occurs within one year of a report, the employer bears the burden to prove that the action was not taken for reasons related to the whistleblowing.※2
(d) Express obligation to inform of internal systems: The obligation to “take necessary measures,” such as establishing internal systems, to “protect whistleblowers and to promote compliance with the provisions of the laws and regulations” includes that enterprises must inform workers and others of their whistleblowing response framework (Article 11, paragraph 2). The obligation to “take necessary measures” already existed under prior law. What this amendment clarifies, however, is that the preexisting obligation encompasses a duty to inform employees about the internal whistleblowing response system.

(ii) Strengthened sanctions and administrative investigation powers

The amendment introduces a number of measures addressed at companies that fail to designate personnel engaged in whistleblowing response operations (i.e., those failing to establish a whistleblowing response framework):

In addition to current powers to provide administrative guidance, advice, and recommendations, the relevant authority has the power to issue administrative orders and make public announcements where recommendations are not followed (Article 15-2).
In addition to the current power to require reports, the relevant authority has the power to conduct on-site inspections (Article 16, paragraph 1).
Criminal penalties for violating an order under (1), and for failure to report, false reporting, or refusal of inspection under (2): a fine of up to JPY 300,000 (Article 21, paragraph 2; Article 23, paragraph 1, item 2).

The amendment also creates criminal penalties for those who dismiss or impose disciplinary action on the grounds of whistleblowing: imprisonment for up to six months or a fine of up to JPY 300,000; for corporations, a fine of up to JPY 30,000,000 (Article 21, paragraph 1; Article 23, paragraph 1, item 1).

Practical notes

As outlined above, once the amendments take effect, protections for whistleblowers will be expanded and sanctions and administrative enforcement powers will be strengthened. Companies should therefore confirm that their frameworks and practices do not give rise to violations of the Act.

The presumption regarding dismissals or disciplinary actions within one year of a report is particularly consequential. Even when an employer seeks to dismiss or discipline a person for reasons unrelated to whistleblowing, if that person brings a claim alleging that the action was taken due to whistleblowing, the company will bear the burden of proving that the action was not retaliatory in civil litigation. If the company cannot meet that burden in court, the dismissal or disciplinary action may be invalidated, and the company may be ordered to pay unpaid wages with interest, compensate for mental distress, and reinstate the individual. Further, if the individual files a criminal complaint for violation of the Act, the company could face the burden of criminal investigation and exposure to criminal sanctions. Accordingly, after the amendments take effect, companies should conduct careful risk assessments before dismissing or disciplining any person who has made a report within the previous year. In practice, dismissals and disciplinary actions are often handled by HR departments, while information relating to whistleblowing reports may be administered by compliance or legal departments and not routinely shared with HR. After the amendments take effect, HR should be made aware of the need to conduct risk assessments whenever considering dismissal or disciplinary action. Where such actions are contemplated, companies should ensure appropriate coordination with the compliance and legal departments, establish procedures to assess risks, and maintain internal records sufficient to demonstrate that the action is not taken due to whistleblowing. Particularly for foreign-affiliated companies operating in Japan, which may be more likely than traditional Japanese companies to effect dismissals based on performance evaluation, the amendments may have a significant impact on HR practices.

Before the effective date, it is expected that the statutory guidelines and commentary setting out practical implementation standards will also be revised. In-house practitioners should monitor revisions to these guidelines and commentary and endeavor to align their systems and practices during 2026.

Endnotes

*1
This summary focuses on provisions relevant to corporate activities and does not include provisions that apply only to administrative agencies. While the Consumer Affairs Agency, which is in charge of this legislation in Japan, groups the amendments into four categories in its official summary, this article organizes the principal changes into two categories for clarity: (i) enhanced protections for whistleblowers, and (ii) strengthened sanctions and administrative investigation powers.

*2
Dismissals or disciplinary actions taken on the grounds of whistleblowing are invalid (Article 3, paragraph 2).

December 12, 2025

This newsletter is given as general information for reference purposes only and therefore does not constitute our firm’s legal advice. Any opinion stated in this newsletter is a personal view of the author(s) and not our firm’s official view. For any specific matter or legal issue, please do not rely on this newsletter but make sure to consult a legal adviser. We would be delighted to answer your questions, if any.

Download full text（PDF）