The entity implements procedures to receive, address, resolve, and communicate the resolution of inquiries and complaints

To meet the the entity implements procedures to receive, address, resolve, and communicate the resolution of inquiries and complaints requirement, you need a documented, consistently followed process that captures inquiries/complaints from all intake channels, routes them to accountable owners, tracks investigation and resolution, and communicates outcomes to the requester with appropriate approvals and records ¹.

Key takeaways:

• Define “inquiry” and “complaint,” then standardize intake, triage, ownership, and closure across every channel ¹.
• Prove operation, not intent: retain ticket logs, timelines, approvals, communications, and closure evidence for sampled cases ¹.
• Build escalation paths for privacy, security, legal, and customer-impact issues so resolution and messaging stay controlled ¹.

SOC 2 reviewers often treat complaint handling as a “soft” control until it fails. Then it becomes a hard finding because it touches customer trust, privacy commitments, incident detection, and contractual obligations. The requirement is straightforward: you must have procedures to receive, address, resolve, and communicate the resolution of inquiries and complaints ¹. The operational challenge is making that procedure real across email inboxes, support chat, sales escalations, security@ messages, and calls that never hit your ticketing system.

A good implementation looks like this: every inbound issue lands in a system of record, is categorized (inquiry vs complaint, and by domain), is assigned an owner with a due date, is investigated with documented steps, and is closed only after a defined “resolution communication” is sent (or documented as intentionally not sent with rationale). A great implementation adds governance: trend reporting, root-cause actions, and clear escalation for privacy and security-sensitive matters.

This page gives requirement-level guidance you can operationalize quickly: process design, roles, evidence, audit-ready workflows, and a 30/60/90 plan.

Regulatory text

Requirement excerpt: “The entity implements procedures to receive, address, resolve, and communicate the resolution of inquiries and complaints” ¹.

Operator translation (what you must do):

• Receive: Provide defined channels and ensure issues are captured and logged ¹.
• Address: Triage, classify, and route issues to accountable teams with appropriate priority ¹.
• Resolve: Investigate, take corrective action, document the outcome, and confirm closure criteria are met ¹.
• Communicate resolution: Notify the requester (or document why you did not), using approved messaging and appropriate oversight for sensitive issues ¹.

This is a procedure-and-evidence control. Auditors will look for written process + proof it ran consistently during the review period ¹.

Plain-English interpretation of the requirement

You need a repeatable “front door to closure” process for inbound customer (and sometimes regulator/partner) questions and complaints about privacy and related commitments. The procedure must prevent issues from being lost, handled ad hoc, or closed without telling the requester what happened ¹.

In practice, teams fail this requirement in two ways:

1. Intake is fragmented. Support has Zendesk, Security has an inbox, Sales has Slack, Legal has email threads. Nothing ties together ¹.
2. Closure is undocumented. A fix is made, but there is no traceable resolution communication or approval for what was said ¹.

Who it applies to (entity and operational context)

This applies to service organizations undergoing a SOC 2 assessment against the Trust Services Criteria, particularly the Privacy category where inquiries and complaints are directly relevant ¹.

Operationally, it applies anywhere your organization:

• Receives customer questions about privacy practices, data processing, retention, access requests, or disclosures ¹.
• Receives complaints about service behavior with privacy impact (unexpected data exposure, misdirected emails, account access issues, consent/marketing complaints) ¹.
• Communicates outcomes externally (support responses, security responses, legal responses, executive escalations) ¹.

Third parties matter here too: if a complaint relates to a subprocessors’ action, your procedure must still drive intake, coordination, and customer communications ¹.

What you actually need to do (step-by-step)

1) Define scope, terms, and system of record

• Define “inquiry” vs “complaint.” Keep it simple and operational: inquiries request information or action; complaints allege dissatisfaction, harm, or policy breach ¹.
• Choose a system of record (ticketing tool, GRC case module, or CRM case object) and declare it the required log for all covered issues ¹.
• List intake channels that must feed the log: support portal, email aliases, phone, in-app chat, web form, security inbox, privacy inbox, partner escalations ¹.

Control tip: If you cannot force every channel into one tool, require a “manual capture” step: create a ticket within a defined time after receipt, and train teams to do it ¹.

2) Build triage rules and routing

Create a triage rubric that assigns:

• Category: privacy inquiry, privacy complaint, security-related, billing/contract, product behavior, third-party-related ¹.
• Severity and priority: define triggers for escalation (e.g., alleged unauthorized disclosure, regulator contact, executive escalation, repeated complaint) ¹.
• Owner and resolver group: Support owns intake; Privacy/Security/Legal own investigation depending on category ¹.

Add an explicit rule: no closure without a documented resolution communication (email template, portal response, letter, or recorded call summary), unless Legal approves non-response ¹.

3) Define investigation and resolution workflow

Your procedure should require the case owner to:

• Acknowledge receipt to the requester using an approved message ¹.
• Collect facts (logs, account identifiers, screenshots, processor records) and document steps taken ¹.
• Coordinate with third parties when implicated (subprocessor support case, incident info request, contractual notification checks) ¹.
• Determine outcome (explained behavior, confirmed issue fixed, user error, policy exception, product defect, potential incident) and document rationale ¹.
• Record corrective actions (configuration change, product fix, training, contract update, knowledge base update) with links to change records when available ¹.

4) Control the resolution communication

Set communication rules so you do not create new risk while responding:

• Approved templates for common privacy inquiries and complaints ¹.
• Review/approval gates for sensitive outcomes (Security/Privacy/Legal sign-off for high-risk matters) ¹.
• Channel standards: reply through the originating channel where feasible, but store a copy or transcript in the case record ¹.
• Explain the result plainly: what you found, what you changed (if anything), what the requester can do next, and how to escalate if unsatisfied ¹.

5) Close with quality checks and reporting

• Closure criteria checklist: category assigned, owner assigned, investigation notes present, resolution action recorded, resolution message captured, closure code selected ¹.
• Manager review of a subset of closed cases for completeness and tone consistency ¹.
• Trend reporting: recurring themes, backlog risk, root-cause candidates, third-party concentration, and whether policy updates are needed ¹.

6) Document the control design and retain operating evidence

SOC 2 success here often comes down to evidence hygiene. Treat this as a formal control with an owner, cadence, and test steps ¹. If you use Daydream, map the procedure to the control narrative and attach recurring evidence (policy, workflow screenshots, sample tickets, approvals) so the audit package is continuously ready ¹.

Required evidence and artifacts to retain

Keep artifacts that prove each verb in the requirement (receive/address/resolve/communicate) ¹:

Core documentation

• Written procedure (SOP) for inquiries/complaints handling, including roles and escalation paths ¹.
• RACI or responsibility matrix for Support, Privacy, Security, Legal, Product, and Customer Success ¹.
• Triage rubric and severity definitions ¹.
• Communication templates and approval rules ¹.

Operational evidence (what auditors sample)

• Case/ticket log export showing intake date, category, owner, status, and closure ¹.
• Sampled case files with investigation notes, attachments, and linked corrective actions ¹.
• Copies of resolution communications or call notes, plus approvals where required ¹.
• Escalation evidence (internal handoffs, security triage, legal review comments) ¹.
• Metrics snapshots or management review notes showing oversight ¹.

Common exam/audit questions and hangups

Expect these lines of inquiry in a SOC 2 walkthrough and sampling ¹:

1. “Show me all channels where complaints can arrive.” Hangup: teams forget sales escalations and security inboxes.
2. “How do you ensure every complaint is logged?” Hangup: verbal/Slack requests that never become tickets.
3. “How do you classify privacy complaints vs general support?” Hangup: inconsistent tagging.
4. “Prove you communicated the resolution.” Hangup: no saved email, no portal transcript, or response sent from personal inbox with no retention.
5. “What happens when the complaint involves a third party?” Hangup: no documented coordination or outcome messaging.

Frequent implementation mistakes and how to avoid them

Mistake	Why it fails the requirement	Fix that works in practice
No single log	You cannot prove receipt, routing, or closure 1.	Mandate a system of record and require manual capture for exceptions 1.
“Resolved” without message	Requirement explicitly includes communicating resolution 1.	Add closure checklist: attach response or document approved non-response 1.
No escalation criteria	Sensitive issues get mishandled or inconsistently reviewed 1.	Create simple triggers for Privacy/Security/Legal review 1.
Templates exist, but teams free-text	Increases risk of overpromising or inconsistent statements 1.	Require templates for defined categories and manager review for high-risk cases 1.
Evidence scattered across tools	Sampling becomes slow and incomplete 1.	Store communications and approvals in the case record or attach artifacts in Daydream 1.

Enforcement context and risk implications

No public enforcement cases were provided for this requirement in the supplied source catalog. Treat the risk as practical and audit-driven: weak complaint handling creates gaps in privacy commitments, slows incident detection, increases customer churn, and produces unfavorable SOC 2 findings when evidence is missing ¹.

A practical 30/60/90-day execution plan

Days 0–30: Stand up the minimum viable procedure

• Publish the SOP: definitions, channels, system of record, triage categories, escalation triggers, closure criteria ¹.
• Configure the case system: required fields (category, severity, owner), status flow, closure codes, and a “resolution communication attached” requirement ¹.
• Create templates for top inquiry/complaint types and a review rule for sensitive matters ¹.
• Train intake teams (Support, Security, Sales/CS): “If it’s not logged, it didn’t happen” standard ¹.

Days 31–60: Make it consistent and auditable

• Run weekly QA on closed cases: completeness, correct routing, resolution message captured ¹.
• Add third-party coordination step: how to open/track subprocessor tickets and capture outcomes ¹.
• Start a monthly trend review with actions assigned (product fixes, KB updates, training) and retain meeting notes ¹.
• In Daydream, store the control narrative, screenshots of workflow configuration, and a rolling evidence set of sampled cases ¹.

Days 61–90: Operationalize governance

• Implement management reporting: backlog themes, escalations, repeat complaints, and corrective action tracking ¹.
• Test the control like an auditor: pick cases from across the period and prove each step end-to-end ¹.
• Tighten approval thresholds based on what the samples show (over-escalation or under-escalation) ¹.
• Prepare an audit packet: SOP, RACI, templates, system screenshots, case log export, and sample case binders ¹.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do “inquiries” include customer support requests that are not privacy-related?

Scope them based on your SOC 2 boundaries and the commitments you make to customers. For TSC-P8.1, prioritize privacy-related inquiries and complaints and define that boundary in your procedure ¹.

What counts as “communicating the resolution” if the customer never replies?

You need evidence you sent the resolution (or attempted to) through the agreed channel, and you retained a copy or transcript in the case record. If you intentionally do not respond, document the reason and approval ¹.

We receive complaints in Slack from Sales. Is that acceptable?

Slack can be an intake channel, but the requirement becomes hard to evidence unless the issue is logged into the system of record with timestamps, ownership, and the outbound resolution message captured ¹.

How do we handle complaints that look like security incidents?

Your triage rubric should route those to Security for incident triage while keeping the complaint case open (or linked) so you can still document resolution communication. Keep Legal and Privacy approval gates for customer-facing statements where needed ¹.

Do we need formal SLAs for response and resolution times?

The requirement does not state a specific time threshold. Define internal targets that fit your customer commitments, then show you track and manage exceptions ¹.

What evidence is most commonly missing during a SOC 2 audit?

The resolution communication and the investigation trail are the usual gaps: teams fix the issue but cannot show what was sent to the requester or how the conclusion was reached ¹.

Related compliance topics

• 2025 SEC Marketing Rule Examination Focus Areas
• Access and identity controls
• Access Control (AC)
• Access control and identity discipline
• Access control management

Footnotes

1. AICPA TSC 2017