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​ 

July 26, 2023
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) held a briefing session on July 20, 2023, laying out the changes and new requirements in draft sublaws under the Royal Decree on Digital Platform Services. These sublaws are expected to be announced in August 2023. The key changes and new requirements are listed below. The ETDA has drafted guidelines on the methods for identifying active users to give digital platform service operators a better understanding of the calculation methods. The definition of “users” for calculating annual monthly active users (AMAUs) has been reduced in scope to cover only users in Thailand. E-marketplace digital platform services that will suspend or terminate operations for specific users must inform the affected users and provide a period for them to challenge the suspension or termination. Digital platform service operators cannot use the requirements to identify their active users as a legal basis for processing users’ personal data, especially for profiling and tracking activities. The sublaws on announcement of terms and conditions (T&Cs) and changes to T&Cs, once issued, will take effect on January 3, 2024, while the other sublaws will take effect immediately (i.e., August 21, 2023). This shows that the ETDA has acknowledged the private sector’s feedback that the requirements on T&Cs will take more time for operators to comply with. The requirements for changing T&Cs have been adjusted. Under the current draft, the required advance notification period can be exempted if a change in the T&Cs is for the purpose of, for example, rolling out new products or services and improving the platform. Required submissions under the Royal Decree for Digital Platform Services and its sublaws will be made through the ETDA’s online portal. There will likely be no extensions granted for compliance with the Royal Decree for Digital Platform Services and its sublaws
July 14, 2023
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has issued new notifications amending regulations for payment businesses that fall under the Payment Systems Act B.E. 2560 (2017) to promote transparency and good governance in the payment industry. Notification No. SorKorChor 2/2566 (“Notification 2”) increases the required qualifications for applicants seeking a license to provide payment services designated as being under the BOT’s supervision, and Notification No. SorKorChor 4/2566 (“Notification 4”) stipulates additional duties and exemptions for certain types of business operators. The notifications were published in the Government Gazette on July 7, 2023, and came into effect the following day. Additional Qualifications Notification 2 expands the list of prohibited characteristics for business operators applying for a license or registration to engage in a designated payment service, and their directors. For example, applicants must not have been ordered to suspend or cease their operations, and their registration or license to engage in financial business or operate a designated payment system or service must not have been revoked. The notification defines “financial business” as including financial institutions, credit card business, personal loan business, securities business, and so on. In addition, applicants’ directors and management must not have prohibited characteristics, such as being involved in the management of a financial business or designated payment system or service that was ordered to suspend or cease its operations. The applicable registration or license also must not have been revoked. Reporting Requirements During the application process, Notification 2 requires applicants to disclose information on shareholders and related parties (including spouses) who hold an aggregate 10 percent or more of the total paid-up shares. Notification 4 imposes this same reporting duty regarding shareholders and related parties but applies it to licensed operators in an ongoing manner. Existing payment service operators must make their first report of this information to
July 12, 2023
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
July 11, 2023
Can computer programs resolve legal disputes? For decades, the answer from much of the legal community has been no. However, developments in artificial intelligence (AI), and in particular natural language processing and machine learning, have led to renewed discussions of this possibility. Increasingly, tools are being developed to assist parties with litigation outcome prediction and judges with litigation outcome determination. However, while some argue that the use of AI in legal disputes can reduce the length of proceedings, cut costs, and improve access to justice, others raise concerns that “black box” AI systems could reduce transparency, entrench bias, and harm the development of the law. Litigation Outcome Prediction The use of computers to predict the outcome of legal cases is not new. As early as the 1980s, researchers developed outcome prediction tools, often in the form of decision-tree algorithms. However, developments in AI have allowed the creation of more sophisticated prediction models. In 2017, a model built by Katz et al. predicted US Supreme Court decisions with an accuracy of 70.2%, while in 2019, a model built by Medvedeva et al. predicted decisions of the European Court of Human Rights with an accuracy of 75%. In various studies, AI tools have been able to predict case outcomes more accurately than expert lawyers. Companies such as Solomonic and Lex Machina, owned by LexisNexis, now provide commercial litigation prediction and analytics tools. Outcome prediction tools can be used by parties and their legal representatives to craft arguments and facilitate settlement negotiations, or by third-party litigation financers to assess the risk of providing funding. More broadly, outcome prediction may be used by the likes of insurance companies to help calculate claim payouts. However, those using such tools must take care to ensure that they do not breach any professional or legal obligations.