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

August 28, 2018

Vietnam’s Controversial New Cybersecurity Law Raises Questions

Informed Counsel

Despite wide concern from inside and outside the country, and even after a request for postponement from 13 Vietnamese technology associations, Vietnam’s new Law on Cybersecurity was finally adopted by the National Assembly on June 12, 2018, after more than a dozen drafts and wide debate in the business and government sectors. The Cybersecurity Law will come into effect on January 1, 2019.

The Cybersecurity Law applies to domestic and foreign companies providing services to customers in Vietnam over telecom networks or the internet, such as social networks, search engines, online advertising, online streaming/‌broadcasting, e-commerce websites/‌marketplaces, internet-based voice/text services (OTT services), cloud services, online games, and online applications.

With its broad scope of application, the Cybersecurity Law potentially imposes tremendous obligations on both onshore and, especially, offshore companies providing online services to Vietnamese customers. For example, the new law requires that owners of websites, portals, and social networks do not provide, post, or transmit any information that is propaganda against the Vietnamese government; instigates violent disturbances, disrupts security, or disturbs public order; contains humiliating or slanderous information; or contains fabricated or untrue information (in specified contexts).

This means websites and social networks must not post or allow their users to post “anti-state,” “offensive,” or “inciting” content. Furthermore, service providers must develop mechanisms to monitor, verify, and take down prohibited content posted by their users within 24 hours after receiving a request from government authorities. Similar but conflicting requirements exist in other legislation; for example, regulations on general websites and social networks set a time limit of three hours for service providers to take down violating content. This is a discrepancy that will need to be resolved or have further guidance for implementation.

These requirements may diminish the website/social network operators’ “safe harbor” under other valid legislation that protects them from the responsibility to monitor or supervise digital information of their users, or investigate breaches of the law arising from the process of transmitting or storing digital information of their users.

In addition, domestic and foreign companies providing services over telecom networks or the internet or value-added services in cyberspace in Vietnam must:

  • authenticate users’ information upon registration;
  • keep user information confidential; and
  • cooperate with Vietnamese authorities to provide information on their users when such users are investigated or deemed to have breached laws on cybersecurity.

Furthermore, Article 26.3 of the new law states:

Domestic and foreign enterprises providing services on telecommunication networks or the internet or value-added services in cyberspace in Vietnam with activities of collecting, exploiting, analyzing, and processing personal information data, data on the relationships of service users, or data generated by service users in Vietnam must store such data in Vietnam for the period prescribed by the government.

This language is broad and vague enough to cover a wide range of businesses and data in this current high-tech era. In addition, it is not clear how these requirements would actually be implemented in practice unless there are subordinate regulations specifically providing guidance for its implementation. For example, would a small social network of animal lovers sharing information about pets be required to open a branch or representative office in Vietnam, just because it provides social network services in cyberspace and collects personal data of Vietnamese users who join the network?

It is worth noting that some restrictions on cross-border transfer of Vietnamese users’ information found in earlier drafts of the law have been removed or relaxed in the adopted version. Under the new law, both onshore and offshore online service providers appear to no longer be required to store their users’ information “only” within Vietnam and comply with specified assessment procedures before transferring any “critical data” outside of Vietnam. Instead, they are simply required to store Vietnamese users’ information within Vietnam for a certain period of time. However, during this statutory retention period, the law does not appear to expressly prohibit the online service providers from duplicating the data or transferring/storing such duplicated data outside of Vietnam.

Further, the controversial requirement from previous drafts that offshore service providers must place servers in Vietnam has also been removed from the final version. However, by requiring offshore service providers to “store” Vietnamese users’ information in Vietnam, the law effectively forces these providers to have servers in Vietnam, either by directly owning/operating the servers or leasing servers owned/operated by other service providers in Vietnam to store such information.

Another area of concern is that the broad scope and power given to the cybersecurity authorities may create a high risk of abuse if there are no proper procedures in place and/or no further regulations on how and when they can take action on content and other issues. The law requires companies not only to comply with the cybersecurity authorities’ requests and instructions, but also to help them implement their cybersecurity protection measures, which include blocking or restricting the operation of information systems (Article 5.1 and 42.3). Moreover, the cybersecurity authorities will be authorized to conduct ad hoc inspections of an organization’s information systems when there are cybersecurity incidents or breaches considered critical to national security (Article 13). This could also put individual privacy at risk, with personal information subject to being scrutinized by the cybersecurity authorities.

Many industry experts have expressed concerns that the law will create obstacles and disadvantages for cyberspace activities and the business environment in Vietnam, and have questioned how the law would effectively achieve its purpose of ensuring national security. In particular, the most problematic issues of data localization/retention and business presence requirements in the law could be seen as a big step backward, which could potentially have adverse effects on international commitments made by Vietnam in multilateral trade agreements, such as the EVFTA, CPTPP, and Vietnam’s WTO Commitments, all of which promote trade liberalization and minimizing technical barriers to trade.

Time will be needed for the Vietnamese government to prepare to implement the Cybersecurity Law, and many details will need to be further clarified. According to public statements from the Director General of the Cybersecurity Department of the Ministry of Public Security, there will need to be 25 subordinate regulations (decrees and circulars) drafted and issued in the coming time.

Any onshore and offshore online service providers wishing to provide services to customers in Vietnam would be well advised to assess the Cybersecurity Law and prepare themselves to comply with these requirements before they take effect on January 1, 2019.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 14, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Insurance Commission (OIC) has issued guidelines clarifying the boundaries between permissible and prohibited activities for unlicensed individuals—including influencers, bloggers, and content creators—when communicating about insurance products on social media. The Good Practice Guidelines for Persons Not Licensed as Insurance Agents or Brokers Regarding the Dissemination of Insurance Content Through Digital Media B.E. 2569 (2026) took effect on July 24, 2026. Activities Requiring a License The guidelines reserve the following activities for licensed agents and brokers: Soliciting or facilitating insurance contracts. Providing personalized advice on product suitability. Recommending policy cancellation to purchase promoted products. Creating links that facilitate contract formation. Receiving performance-based compensation tied to policies or premiums generated. Importantly, boilerplate disclaimers such as “this is not a recommendation to buy insurance” will not shield individuals from liability if the OIC views the content as personalized advice or solicitation. Permitted Activities Unlicensed persons may present general educational content about insurance—such as explaining terminology, sharing industry statistics, reporting news, or sharing personal experiences—provided the content does not target specific individuals to purchase from specific companies. The guidelines also set out best practices for communication, including presenting information in a fair and balanced manner that covers both benefits and limitations, encouraging consumers to read policy terms and consult licensed professionals, verifying information from credible sources before dissemination, and exercising special care when the audience may include vulnerable groups such as persons aged 60 and older. Prohibited Practices Prohibited practices include fear-based marketing, creating artificial urgency, omitting material limitations, making exaggerated claims, falsely claiming professional credentials, using fake engagement mechanisms, and sharing false or misleading content. The guidelines also reinforce the prohibitions under section 83 of the Life Insurance Act B.E. 2535 and section 78 of the Non-Life Insurance Act B.E. 2535 against soliciting insurance contracts with foreign operators
August 11, 2026
On July 27, 2026, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) released a draft decree proposing amendments to Decree No. 52/2024/ND-CP dated May 15, 2024, on non-cash payments (Decree 52). The draft decree would amend 17 of Decree 52’s 38 articles, with several key changes directly affecting providers of intermediary payment service (IPS). The key proposed changes affecting IPS providers are outlined below. Streamlining IPS Licensing Procedures A central objective of the draft decree is to simplify regulatory procedures for IPS providers. Notably, it would significantly reduce IPS licensing documentation requirements by removing the need to submit enterprise registration certificates, investment registration certificates, and documents evidencing the qualifications of the legal representative and general director. Instead, the SBV would retrieve this information directly from national business registration and other specialized databases, requesting additional documents only where the relevant information cannot be verified electronically or is incomplete. The draft decree also removes the current limit of two rounds for dossier supplementation and shortens processing timelines for several IPS licensing procedures such as issuance, amendment, and reissuance of IPS licenses. The processing time for new IPS license applications would be thereby reduced from 90 to 60 working days. In addition, several continuing IPS business conditions would be removed. For example, IPS providers would no longer be required to maintain certain representations relating to corporate restructuring or the legality of contributed capital. Likewise, the IPS project plan (đề án) would become a one-time application document rather than an ongoing licensing condition. If retained in the final decree, this change could provide IPS providers with significantly greater flexibility to implement post-licensing technology upgrades, system integrations, and corporate restructuring transactions without needing to revisit the originally approved project plan. The draft decree also removes the requirement for the SBV to consult the Ministry of Public
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
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