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​ 

July 27, 2026
A new decree on penalties for violations related to the crypto asset market creates compliance risks for offshore crypto asset exchanges in Vietnam that do not hold, and practically cannot obtain, a Vietnamese license, and for Vietnamese users who continue to transact on those platforms. Decree No. 284/2026/ND-CP (Decree 284), issued by the government of Vietnam on July 16, 2026, formally establishes an administrative penalty framework for violations related to crypto assets and the crypto asset market. The decree takes effect on September 1, 2026, and will remain in force for the duration of the five-year pilot program under Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP, which is scheduled to end in September 2030. Direct Penalties on Vietnamese Users The most immediate commercial risk to offshore platforms is that their Vietnamese users now face direct personal liability for using their exchanges. Vietnamese users who trade crypto assets outside of a Ministry of Finance-licensed service provider face fines of up to VND 50 million (approximately USD 1,900). Vietnamese users trading in crypto assets that are offered or issued to foreign users face higher penalties of up to VND 100 million (approximately USD 3,800). It is expected that Vietnamese users will be more willing to migrate away from offshore platforms now that there is a risk of real enforcement against them. Penalties on Unlicensed Service Providers Violations of providing crypto asset services or advertising crypto-related services without a license face fines of up to VND 200 million (approximately USD 7,700). Operating a crypto asset trading market without proper authorization falls within the same highest penalty bands. Organizations that violate issuance, provision, or disclosure rules may face fines of up to VND 200 million. Although the maximum administrative fine per violation is capped at VND 200 million for organizations and VND 100 million for individuals, these
Read More
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 20, 2026
On July 16, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a notification in the Government Gazette establishing detailed rules governing data subjects’ right of access under section 30 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The notification will take effect 60 days after publication—mid-September 2026—giving data controllers a limited window to bring their processes into compliance. Scope The notification covers requests to access or obtain copies of personal data and requests for disclosure of the source of data collected without consent. Data subjects may exercise their rights directly or through authorized representatives. Key Requirements Important requirements set by the notification include the following: Required request channels. Controllers must provide at least two request channels: direct submission at the business location and registered mail. Electronic channels are optional but, if offered, may also be used for fulfilling requests. Request contents. Requests must be in writing or in electronic form and include the data subject’s name, the preferred access method, details of the data requested, and the requester’s signature. Controllers may request additional identifying information as needed. Identity and authority verification. Controllers may require official identity documents for verification. Authorized representatives must provide authorization documents and identity documents for both the data subject and the representative. Alternative verification methods (e.g., digital authentication) are permitted if they do not unreasonably obstruct data subjects’ rights. Review and response timelines. Controllers must review requests within 15 days. If the request is incomplete, the controller must notify the requester and allow at least 15 days to correct deficiencies. If not corrected, the request may be treated as abandoned. Once verified, controllers must fulfill requests within 30 days, extendable by another 30 days for large-volume or complex requests with notice to the requester. Methods for providing access or copies. Controllers may fulfill
Read More
July 16, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a series of draft guidance documents for public consultation on July 7, 2026. Issued under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), the drafts address a range of compliance issues and offer insight into the regulator’s current enforcement priorities. This article examines two of those drafts: one on lawful bases for processing personal data, and another on marketing and direct marketing. Together, they reflect the Office of the PDPC’s evolving expectations on lawful-basis selection, accountability, and the use of personal data in marketing. Organizations operating in Thailand should assess the practical implications now, before the guidance is finalized. Lawful Bases: A Structured Selection Process The draft guidance on lawful bases introduces a systematic five-step process for selecting an appropriate lawful basis for each processing activity. Organizations are expected to: Identify the processing activity involved. Assess the appropriate lawful basis. Evaluate whether the data is necessary for the processing. Conduct a legitimate interest assessment (LIA) where applicable. Ensure transparency through privacy notices. The guidance provides practical explanations and examples for each lawful basis under section 24 of the PDPA—including archiving, research, statistics, vital interests, contractual necessity, legal obligation, public task, legitimate interests, and consent—as well as the bases applicable to sensitive personal data under section 26. The aim is to promote more consistent and accurate lawful-basis selection across public- and private-sector organizations. A recurring theme throughout the guidance is that organizations should select the lawful basis that most accurately reflects the actual purpose and circumstances of the processing activity. The guidance cautions against treating consent as a default or catch-all basis where another lawful basis is more appropriate. For processing based on legitimate interests, organizations should conduct and document an LIA. Processing involving sensitive personal data may require
Read More