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

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 INSIGHTS​ 

October 7, 2022
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) has opened a public hearing period on its draft notification regarding cross-border transfer of personal data. The public hearing is open through October 24. The notification, once issued, will supplement the principle of cross-border transfer of personal data outside of Thailand set out in the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA). The notification sets out the following key matters: Definitions “Transfer of personal data” means any sending or transferring of personal data by a transferor of personal data, either by way of a physical transfer or a remote transfer through a computer system or an internet network to the recipient of the personal data. It does not include sending personal data through an intermediary by transiting between computer systems or internet networks, or any storing or retaining of personal data, either permanently or temporarily, by a cloud computing service provider, whereby the personal data transferor and the personal data recipient (1) are not making the order, (2) are not involved with any data selection or the content of the personal data sent and received through the computer systems or internet networks, or (3) have the purpose of entering into an agreement or any juristic act. “Binding corporate rules” means the agreed terms or policy on personal data protection made between the personal data transferor and the personal data recipient to establish appropriate measures for safeguarding personal data within a group of corporations or companies. “Standard contractual clauses” means the contractual terms made between the personal data transferor and the personal data recipient to establish appropriate measures for safeguarding personal data. “Code of conduct” means a code that sets out the obligations of a personal data transferor and a personal data recipient outside of Thailand. “Certification” means an undertaking in relation to
September 21, 2022
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) has released separate guidelines for data controllers to follow in obtaining data subjects’ consent and notifying data subjects of required information (i.e., regarding collection, use, or disclosure of their personal data). By following the guidelines, data controllers can mitigate the risk of violating the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The Guidelines on Obtaining Consent from the Data Subject according to the PDPA and the Guidelines on Notification of Purposes and Details upon the Collection of Personal Data from the Data Subject according to the PDPA were issued on September 7, 2022. Consent Guidelines The PDPC’s guidelines on obtaining consent list the requirements for consent to be considered valid. These requirements include stipulations on timing of requests, elements that need to be included in requests, and the nature of requests. For instance, consent must be obtained before or at the time of obtaining personal data, and data subjects must be informed of both the purposes and details of the personal data handling, among other specific requirements. In turn, there must be a clear affirmative act of the data subject in giving consent. Obtaining consent from minors is subject to more stringent requirements, and data controllers should implement appropriate identification and age-verification measures when collecting personal data about minors. The guidelines give two sets of requirements, depending on the age of the minor—between 10 and 20, and under 10. In general, with the older age group, parental consent is not required in all circumstances, while for the younger age group, parental consent is compulsory for giving consent on behalf of the minor. For a person deemed to be “incompetent” or “quasi-incompetent,” consent must always be given by the legal guardian. Notification Guidelines The guidelines on notifying data subjects when collecting personal data
September 16, 2022
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) has issued a regulation establishing procedures for filing and processing data subjects’ complaints under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The Regulation Re: Complaint Filing, Rejection, Termination, Consideration, and the Period for the Consideration of the Complaint B.E. 2565 (2022) was issued in July 2022 and took effect on July 12, 2022. The PDPA entitles data subjects to file complaints against data controllers, data processors, and employees or service providers of either whose operations fail to comply with the PDPA. This article lays out the various requirements and procedures for the filing and processing of such a complaint. Complaint Submission The body designated by the PDPA to be responsible for handling complaints and imposing administrative penalties is called the “Expert Committee.” Data subjects who would like to make a complaint can submit it to the Expert Committee directly at the Office of PDPC, send it to the office by post, or submit the complaint electronically. The written or electronic complaint must use clear, plain, polite, and appropriate language, and must not give an impression of being directly or indirectly extorting or intimidating. The complaint must include at least the following information: Name, address, and telephone number or email address of the complainant (or an authorized representative), together with identification card, passport, or other official identification document (plus a power of attorney if submitted by a representative); Details and facts of the noncompliance with or violation of the PDPA; Details of resulting damages or impact; Supporting evidence (e.g., documentary evidence, physical evidence, witness statements); and Action desired of the offender. The complaint must include a statement certifying its veracity, and must be signed by the complainant or the authorized representative. Complaint Consideration When a complaint is submitted, the receiving official will
September 8, 2022
While much attention has been paid to the data localization requirements for foreign enterprises under Vietnam’s 2018 Cybersecurity Law (“CSL”) and the recently issued Decree 53 guiding its implementation, the corresponding requirements for domestic enterprises are often overlooked, despite being potentially more troublesome. Under Decree 53, “domestic enterprises” are defined to mean enterprises established or registered for establishment under Vietnamese law and having their head offices in Vietnam (Article 2.11), so this designation includes not only Vietnamese companies, but foreign-invested enterprises as well. Background Before analyzing the stipulations in Articles 26 and 27 of Decree 53 further guiding the data localization/storage requirements, it is worth restating the very problematic Article 26.3 of the CSL, which reads: “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/or* 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. Foreign enterprises mentioned in this clause must open branches or representative offices in Vietnam.” [* Note: The Vietnamese text simply uses a comma here, without specifying whether this should be “and” or “or,” leading to additional problems in interpretation.] Because of this very broad and ambiguous wording, Article 26.3 of the CSL required further guidance from the government and remained unenforced for more than three years after the CSL took effect on January 1, 2019. Decree 53 guiding the implementation of the CSL was finally issued on August 15, 2022, and provides additional clarity on this matter. But does Decree 53 provide sufficient guidelines for implementation with regard to domestic enterprises? Scope of Application With regard to foreign enterprises, although there remains some ambiguity, Decree