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

January 21, 2025

AI Regulations Come into Focus in Vietnam’s Draft Law on Digital Technology Industry

Subscribe to Updates

Vietnam’s Ministry of Information and Communications has released the latest version of its draft Law on the Digital Technology Industry (DTI Law), marking a significant step toward comprehensive regulation of digital technologies and notably addressing artificial intelligence (AI). The draft law was deliberated in the National Assembly on January 6, 2025, and is expected to be adopted in May 2025. Once in effect, the law will modernize Vietnam’s existing information technology regulatory framework.

Background

Vietnam has been steadily building its regulatory framework for AI since January 2021, when the prime minister issued Decision No. 127/QD-TTg on the National Strategy for Research, Development, and Application of Artificial Intelligence until 2030. While various ministries have been tasked with issuing guidance documents and technical standards, Vietnam still lacks a comprehensive legal framework specifically addressing AI and digital technologies. The draft DTI Law aims to fill this gap by providing a structured approach to regulating the digital technology industry.

Scope and Definitions

The draft DTI Law establishes a broad framework governing digital technology industry activities, initiatives for developing the digital technology sector, and rights and obligations of organizations and individuals in the industry. The draft law also proposes the creation of various incentives, primarily in the form of tax benefits, for encouraging foreign direct investment, talent acquisition and development, and industry growth.

The draft law introduces several important definitions, particularly around AI, which is defined as digital technology that simulates human intelligence to generate content, forecasts, suggestions, and decisions based on human-determined goals. The draft distinguishes between different categories of AI systems:

  • High-risk AI systems: Those posing risks to health, safety, rights, and legitimate interests.
  • High-impact AI systems: Distinguished by their broad scope, large user base, and significant computational resources for training.
  • Standard AI systems: Basic systems that apply AI for automated analysis and decision-making. The draft DTI Law notably contains a “whitelist” of AI systems that are not considered high-risk if they are (1) designed to perform a task within a narrow scope, (2) intended to improve the outcomes of previously completed human activities, and (3) aimed at detecting and recommending deviations from previous results.

Requirements and Restrictions

The draft law implements several requirements for AI deployment, such as:

  • Principles for AI development, provision, implementation, and use, which must:
    • Serve human prosperity and happiness, be human-centered, and enhance productivity and work efficiency; ensure inclusive, fair, and nondiscriminatory access; respect ethical values, human rights, and interests; and protect privacy;
    • Ensure transparency, explainability, accountability, and control over AI algorithms and models, and not replace or surpass human control;
    • Ensure security and confidentiality;
    • Manage risks throughout the AI lifecycle;
    • Promote responsible innovation and encourage international cooperation; and
    • Apply environmentally friendly and energy-saving measures in the development, provision, and use of AI.
  • Mandatory labeling: All digital technology products created by AI systems must be clearly labeled for identification purposes.
  • Prohibited activities: The draft law explicitly prohibits the provision, implementation, or use of AI systems for:
    • Manipulation and fraud;
    • Discriminatory applications;
    • Invasion of privacy;
    • Human rights violations; and
    • Activities infringing on organizational or individual interests.

Next Steps

Although the final version of the DTI Law may differ from this draft, organizations operating or planning to operate in Vietnam’s digital technology sector should review their AI systems, prepare for compliance, and assess potential opportunities for receiving investment incentives.

For AI research and development, attention should be paid to the regulatory developments led by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), which has also issued guiding principles for research and development of AI systems as well as standards on AI lifecycle processes, quality requirements, and sustainability. MOST is also revamping the Law on Science, Technology, and Innovation—the latest draft of which was released in December 2024 and includes guidance on research and development of AI systems.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) recently released draft guidance on records of processing activities (ROPA) for personal data controllers and processors under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The draft guidance, which was presented to the public on July 7, 2026, addresses both controller records of collection, use, and disclosure of personal data and processor records of processing activities carried out on behalf of controllers. If implemented, the guidance will significantly expand organizational expectations for ROPA preparation, maintenance, and use across all sectors. Key Takeaways The draft guidance contains several important implications for organizations subject to the PDPA: ROPA reframed as a core accountability tool. The guidance elevates ROPA from an administrative record to a central accountability mechanism, connecting controller duties with recordkeeping obligations. ROPA as a source for privacy notices and governance documents. ROPA should serve as the primary source for privacy notices and align with consent management, retention schedules, DPIAs, incident response plans, and vendor contracts. Expanded scope across all activities. ROPA must cover all processing activities across the organization—including security, finance, HR, and external contractors—with correct controller or processor classification for each. Ongoing maintenance and auditability. ROPA must be updated for any change to systems, purposes, or processors, reviewed at least annually, and maintained with version control and a designated owner. Enhanced vendor, processor, and cross-border transfer requirements. Organizations must document all processors, external recipients, and cross-border transfers, specifying purposes, access scope, and destination countries. Linkage with risk assessment, DPIAs, and LIAs. ROPA should assign risk levels to each activity and identify when data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) or legitimate interests assessments (LIAs) are required, functioning as a risk-management tool. ROPA and data breach readiness. Incomplete ROPA can delay breach response and notification. Organizations should map data flows, vendors,
Read More