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

July 12, 2023

Circular 06 Sets Out Guidance for VOD Content Providers in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates

On June 30, 2023, Vietnam’s Ministry of Information and Communications (MIC) issued Circular No. 06/2003/TT-BTTTT to provide implementing guidelines for Decree 71 on editing, ratings, and warnings for video on demand (VOD) sports and entertainment content provided over radio and TV services. Circular 06 will take effect on August 15, 2023.

Because Decree 71 allows VOD providers to self-edit and self-rate this type of content, it is important for them to know how the process is regulated in order to fully comply before providing VOD sports and entertainment programs to Vietnamese users.

Under Circular 06, radio and TV service providers are required to display ratings and warnings on their programs, following the principles set out in the circular. These service providers must also compile dossiers in a stipulated form on the editing, ratings, and warnings of their programs for reporting to the authority and inspection.

The main contents of Circular 06 are as follows.

1. Content Editing

The main principles for editing VOD sports and entertainment programs include:

  • Protection of children and other vulnerable people from inappropriate or potentially harmful content.
  • Removal of all illegal/prohibited content, as well as content related to controversial issues or issues not recognized by Vietnamese law.
  • Removal of content or dialogue that disparages the origins of others or makes fun of others’ physical weaknesses, and content that is contrary to Vietnamese culture, morality and fine customs and traditions;
  • Removal of programs if it is discovered during the editing process that in the program or at the venue of the event, there are images or activities violating the prohibitions of the law, violating Vietnamese fine customs and traditions, or containing sensitive political elements.

In addition to compliance with the above-mentioned principles, sports and entertainment programs related to health, education, and online gaming must additionally meet the requirements of relevant specialized laws.

 

2. Content Ratings

Under Circular 06, the principles for rating of programs are based on the manner of expression; specific situations and contexts; interactivity; frequency; duration; level of detail of images, sound, lighting, and dialogue; and the level of impact of the program on the audience, in which the importance of the context and the level of impact on the audience are priority factors in rating of the programs.

The factors for rating programs include topic and content; violence; nudity and sex; drugs, stimulants and addictive substances; horror; vulgar images, sounds, and language; and dangerous behavior that is easy to imitate.

Programs are rated at a lower level when:

  • The program content is depicted verbally rather than visually; or
  • The images and words of the program have a low impact on the audience.

Programs are rated at a more stringent level when the program content:

  • Contains more details, including close-ups and slow motion;
  • Uses highlighting techniques such as lighting, perspective, and resolution;
  • Uses special effects such as light, sound, noise, resolution, color, image size, characteristics, and tones;
  • Is realistic instead of stylized; and
  • Encourages interaction.

There are six categories of program rating, based on the age range of the audience the program is eligible to be disseminated to:

  • P rated: All ages
  • K rated: Under 13 years old, provided that they are with their parents or guardians
  • T13 rated (13+): From 13 years old or older
  • T16 rated (16+): From 16 years old or older
  • T18 rated (18+): From 18 years old or older
  • C rated: Prohibited from dissemination on TV services

For programs at the borderline between levels, if the program has a way of handling situation and results which sends a message of education, humanity, praise of moral and social values, and/or has a positive impact on the audience, it will be considered to be rated at a lower level.

Further details on the program ratings are provided in an appendix to the circular.

Rating descriptors of programs are to be displayed according to the following principles:

  • The rating must be displayed clearly and prominently in the program introduction/display folder on the device’s screen interface so that the audience can make a decision to listen to or watch the program provided on the service.
  • For TV programs and audiovisual programs: The rating must continuously appear in the upper left or right corner of the screen during the program broadcast, ensuring that it does not overlap with the service icons or other icons.
  • For radio programs and audio-only programs: There is no need to display the rating during the program broadcast.

 

3. Content Warnings

Circular 06 provides the following principles for content warnings:

  • For programs rated from K to T18: Warnings must be displayed.
  • For entertainment programs that are reality TV shows; art performances; TV talent contests; exhibitions of risky and dangerous acts, with the risk of causing injury; or fictional TV shows, shows based on real-life events; sports programs in extreme sports, combat sports, and martial arts with violent or/and dangerous nature: A warning text must appear at least three seconds before the time of the act or content subject to the warning, and the text must be maintained throughout the act so that viewers do not imitate and follow the acts in these programs. The warning is to be displayed at the bottom of the screen of the device during broadcast, ensuring that it does not overlap with the service icons or other icons.

The display of warning text must be done immediately at the start of the broadcast and during the broadcast of the program using one or more appropriate methods, including but not limited to verbal or written warnings.

For TV programs and audiovisual programs, a written or verbal warning must be displayed/played no later than three seconds after the start of the broadcast; and display at least one more warning text during the broadcast for programs with a duration of less than 30 minutes, display the warning text at least two more times for programs with a duration of 30 minutes or more. The display position of the warning text is right below the rating icon of the programs.

For radio programs and audio-only programs, a verbal warning must be played immediately at the start of the broadcast.

 

4. Technical Measures

Radio and TV service providers must implement technical and technological measures to manage their content to comply with requirements. In particular, they are required to:

  • Control on the playout server programs that have been edited, rated, and had warnings attached and monitor viewers and listeners by mandatory login of personal information before listening to or viewing programs; allow listeners and viewers to control access by setting the right to restrict listening and viewing according to their needs.
  • Fully archive the provided programs on the storage device system for a period of 30 days to serve the purpose of authorities’ inspection.
  • Edit programs through a delayed server for entertainment programs that are broadcast at the same time as the original program.
Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
August 3, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) released for public comment its draft Notification on Digital Channel Security, which would significantly expand the scope and stringency of Thailand’s existing mobile banking security framework. If finalized in its current form, the draft notification would extend mandatory security requirements to credit card providers and credit providers, cover internet banking in addition to mobile applications, phase out SMS one-time passwords (OTPs) for transaction authentication, and introduce biometric verification requirements for high-value transactions. The public comment period is open through August 24, 2026. Background The BOT’s existing Mobile Banking Security Notification, issued in 2024, sets minimum security standards for financial institutions, specialized financial institutions (SFIs), and e-money providers, significantly reducing “money-draining app” fraud. However, fraudsters have since shifted to nonbank providers and internet banking channels, prompting the BOT to propose broader security requirements. Expanded Scope of Regulated Entities and Channels The existing Mobile Banking Security Notification covers only financial institutions, SFIs, and e-money providers offering mobile banking services. The draft expands coverage in two key areas: entities and channels. On the entity side, it adds credit card providers and credit providers that offer fund transfers to third parties at other financial service providers or that provide cash withdrawal services to individual retail customers. On the channel side, it broadens coverage to include internet banking in addition to mobile banking. Strengthened Customer Authentication The draft introduces enhanced authentication requirements in three areas: Service enrollment and device changes. Providers must implement rigorous identity verification, notify customers of enrollment results through out-of-band communication channels, and adopt risk-mitigation measures such as cooling-off periods and temporary transaction limits. Transaction-level authentication. Providers must use two-factor authentication for fund transfers, cardless ATM withdrawals, and transaction limit increases. Secure authentication factors. Key requirements include the following: “What-you-know” factors must
Read More
July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More