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​ 

April 30, 2026
Vietnam’s Decree No. 134/2026/ND‑CP, which took effect on 9 April 2026, plays an important role in detailing and implementing Vietnam’s Intellectual Property (IP) Law in the context of rapid digital transformation and the growing application of artificial intelligence (AI). The new decree provides comprehensive guidance on the application of copyright and related‑rights regulations, addressing key issues such as authorship, ownership, statutory exceptions and limitations, registration procedures, and enforcement mechanisms. Through these measures, Decree 134 seeks to achieve an appropriate balance between safeguarding the legitimate interests of rightsholders and fostering innovation, research, and technological advancement, thereby strengthening the state’s framework for the effective management, protection, and exploitation of intellectual property in the digital and AI‑driven environment. Some notable aspects of Decree 134 are discussed below. Copyright for AI-Created Works Decree 134 provides important guidance on the determination of copyright and related rights in works created with the assistance of AI. Article 5a reaffirms the principle that human creativity remains central to copyright protection, clarifying that copyright or related rights arise only where a human makes a substantial and decisive intellectual contribution, exercises effective control over the creative outcome, and assumes responsibility for the content and its legality. At the same time, the provision confirms that AI is regarded solely as a technological tool rather than a rights‑holding subject, thus ensuring consistency with the fundamental concepts of authorship and ownership under the IP Law. By introducing requirements on transparency, proof of human contribution, and compliance with AI‑specific labelling and technical marking obligations, Decree 134 establishes a clear and enforceable legal framework for the responsible use of AI in creative activities. Lawful Use of Copyrighted Texts and Data Article 37a of Decree 134 sets out the specific conditions under which copyrighted texts and data may be lawfully used for scientific research, experimentation,
Read More
April 23, 2026
Vietnam has progressively positioned blockchain as a strategic technology within its broader digital transformation agenda over the past decade. From early policy orientations to more recent legislative developments, the regulatory approach has gradually shifted from high-level recognition to more concrete legal integration. Against this backdrop, a new draft decree regulating activities relating to product and goods identification, authentication, and traceability (the “Draft Decree”) marks a notable turning point. Rather than merely referencing blockchain as a policy priority, the Draft Decree incorporates blockchain directly into a nationwide regulatory system, positioning it as part of the underlying infrastructure for data governance and public administration in relation to the management, verification, and traceability of product-related data. Evolution of Vietnam’s Blockchain Legal Framework: The Draft Decree in Context Vietnam’s blockchain legal framework has developed in several distinct phases. The first phase, beginning around 2019, was characterized by high-level policy recognition in several resolutions of the Party Central Committee. Particularly, blockchain was identified as part of the broader category of digital technologies critical to industrial modernization and participation in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. These resolutions did not regulate blockchain directly, but established its strategic importance at the national level. The second phase (2023 to 2025) saw the introduction of national strategies and technology policies that more explicitly recognized blockchain as a priority technology. Those policies collectively signaled a clear policy commitment to developing blockchain infrastructure and applications. However, these instruments remained largely at a policy-level and did not establish binding regulatory frameworks. The third phase (from 2025) involves the gradual integration of blockchain into sectoral legislation. Laws such as the Law on Digital Technology Industry (2025), the Law on Personal Data Protection (2025), and the Law on Science, Technology, and Innovation (2025) have introduced concepts such as digital assets, crypto assets, and even specific
Read More
April 21, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) has launched a public consultation period on a draft notification setting out criteria for data subject access requests (DSARs). The draft notification addresses practical uncertainties in handling DSARs by introducing standardized procedural requirements for data controllers. The consultation period runs from April 16 to May 15, 2026. The notification will enter into force 30 days from the date of its publication in the Government Gazette. Key Features of the Draft Notification The draft notification covers the following key areas: Scope of information subject to access. Data controllers must enable data subjects to access at least the following upon request: (1) personal data collected directly from them; (2) personal data obtained from other sources; and (3) the source of personal data obtained from other sources without consent. Information required under section 23 of the PDPA and information that must be recorded pursuant to section 39 of the PDPA—such as the categories of personal data collected and purposes of processing—must also be made available. Submission channels and formal requirements. Data controllers must provide at least in-person and postal channels for DSARs, while electronic or other channels are optional. Requests may be made either directly by the data subject or through an authorized representative, and must be signed and include sufficient identifying information, a preferred response method, and DSAR details. Identity verification documents (and proof of authority if the request is through a representative) are required, and additional documentation may be requested for verification or communication purposes. Data controllers may use different verification methods for DSARs submitted via electronic or other channels, provided this does not create undue obstacles to the exercise of data subject rights. Verification and response timelines. Data controllers must complete preliminary verification within seven business days of receiving a request. If a
Read More
April 10, 2026
Thailand has introduced new regulatory guidance requiring digital platform operators to adopt structured, transparent, and fair fee practices. On March 16, 2026, the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) published Announcement No. DPS 2/2569, titled “Guidelines for Transparency and Fairness in Digital Platform Service Fee Determination,” issued under the Royal Decree on Digital Platform Service Business Operations B.E. 2565 (2022). The guidelines establish a framework governing how digital platform operators should set, disclose, and adjust fees charged to users and related service providers such as logistics and payment providers. Although framed as best-practice guidance rather than legally binding rules with explicit penalties, the guidelines carry regulatory weight under the royal decree and represent a significant step toward structured governance of digital platform fee practices in Thailand. The guidelines establish various transparency principles and divide fees into two distinct categories—compulsory and additional—with specific governance principles for each. Transparency Principles The guidelines recommend that digital platform operators adopt several transparency measures to ensure that users can fully understand the costs of using a platform. Fee catalog. All fees should be consolidated into a single, accessible location, which should include the fee name, definition, scope of covered services, calculation methodology, rate, billing period, and calculation examples. Minimum service disclosure. Operators should disclose the minimum service that users can expect, such as baseline visibility, product listing capabilities, access to transaction data, and back-end dashboard access. Price structure disclosure. Operators should disclose the categories of costs underlying their fees, such as system maintenance, cybersecurity, and operational costs. While exact cost figures need not be made public, operators should be able to provide numerical data to regulators upon request. Clear fee formulas. Fee calculations should be simple and easy to understand—for example, percentage of net sales, cost per order, or cost per product listing. Operators should
Read More