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

July 12, 2023

Circular 06 Sets Out Guidance for VOD Content Providers in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates

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 the requirements of relevant specialized laws.

 

2. Content Ratings

Under Circular 06, the principles for rating of programs are based on the manner of expression; specific situations and contexts; interactivity; frequency; duration; level of detail of images, sound, lighting, and dialogue; and the level of impact of the program on the audience, in which the importance of the context and the level of impact on the audience are priority factors in rating of the programs.

The factors for rating programs include topic and content; violence; nudity and sex; drugs, stimulants and addictive substances; horror; vulgar images, sounds, and language; and dangerous behavior that is easy to imitate.

Programs are rated at a lower level when:

  • The program content is depicted verbally rather than visually; or
  • The images and words of the program have a low impact on the audience.

Programs are rated at a more stringent level when the program content:

  • Contains more details, including close-ups and slow motion;
  • Uses highlighting techniques such as lighting, perspective, and resolution;
  • Uses special effects such as light, sound, noise, resolution, color, image size, characteristics, and tones;
  • Is realistic instead of stylized; and
  • Encourages interaction.

There are six categories of program rating, based on the age range of the audience the program is eligible to be disseminated to:

  • P rated: All ages
  • K rated: Under 13 years old, provided that they are with their parents or guardians
  • T13 rated (13+): From 13 years old or older
  • T16 rated (16+): From 16 years old or older
  • T18 rated (18+): From 18 years old or older
  • C rated: Prohibited from dissemination on TV services

For programs at the borderline between levels, if the program has a way of handling situation and results which sends a message of education, humanity, praise of moral and social values, and/or has a positive impact on the audience, it will be considered to be rated at a lower level.

Further details on the program ratings are provided in an appendix to the circular.

Rating descriptors of programs are to be displayed according to the following principles:

  • The rating must be displayed clearly and prominently in the program introduction/display folder on the device’s screen interface so that the audience can make a decision to listen to or watch the program provided on the service.
  • For TV programs and audiovisual programs: The rating must continuously appear in the upper left or right corner of the screen during the program broadcast, ensuring that it does not overlap with the service icons or other icons.
  • For radio programs and audio-only programs: There is no need to display the rating during the program broadcast.

 

3. Content Warnings

Circular 06 provides the following principles for content warnings:

  • For programs rated from K to T18: Warnings must be displayed.
  • For entertainment programs that are reality TV shows; art performances; TV talent contests; exhibitions of risky and dangerous acts, with the risk of causing injury; or fictional TV shows, shows based on real-life events; sports programs in extreme sports, combat sports, and martial arts with violent or/and dangerous nature: A warning text must appear at least three seconds before the time of the act or content subject to the warning, and the text must be maintained throughout the act so that viewers do not imitate and follow the acts in these programs. The warning is to be displayed at the bottom of the screen of the device during broadcast, ensuring that it does not overlap with the service icons or other icons.

The display of warning text must be done immediately at the start of the broadcast and during the broadcast of the program using one or more appropriate methods, including but not limited to verbal or written warnings.

For TV programs and audiovisual programs, a written or verbal warning must be displayed/played no later than three seconds after the start of the broadcast; and display at least one more warning text during the broadcast for programs with a duration of less than 30 minutes, display the warning text at least two more times for programs with a duration of 30 minutes or more. The display position of the warning text is right below the rating icon of the programs.

For radio programs and audio-only programs, a verbal warning must be played immediately at the start of the broadcast.

 

4. Technical Measures

Radio and TV service providers must implement technical and technological measures to manage their content to comply with requirements. In particular, they are required to:

  • Control on the playout server programs that have been edited, rated, and had warnings attached and monitor viewers and listeners by mandatory login of personal information before listening to or viewing programs; allow listeners and viewers to control access by setting the right to restrict listening and viewing according to their needs.
  • Fully archive the provided programs on the storage device system for a period of 30 days to serve the purpose of authorities’ inspection.
  • Edit programs through a delayed server for entertainment programs that are broadcast at the same time as the original program.
Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 27, 2025
Three American giants are actively protecting their intellectual property rights against generative AI, as two legal battles commence on both sides of the Atlantic. In the UK, Seattle-based media company Getty Images accuses UK-based Stability AI of multiple IP infringements. In the US, The Walt Disney Company and Universal Studios are teaming up against Midjourney, an AI startup, with their main ground being copyright infringement. Both cases are centered around questions legal minds have been posing since the introduction of generative AI: Is the output of generative AI an infringement? And who is ultimately responsible for the output, the platform or the user? Getty Images v. Stability AI Getty initially filed a claim in the High Court in 2023, which resulted in Stability applying for reverse summary judgment on the grounds that Getty had no real prospect of success, arguing that their operations took place outside the UK. However, the High Court judge hearing the case decided that the claims brought by Getty did have a real prospect of succeeding in court. Despite this, Stability saw a small victory when the court ruled that the representative action brought by Getty would not succeed due to the difficulties in identifying who qualified for the class. The proposed class was comprised of 50,000 rightsholders who alleged their rights were also infringed. Stability was successful in arguing that identifying these individuals would be challenging due to the unclear definition of the class. This current trial is centered around four main grounds: Copyright infringement. Getty accuses Stability of using content that Getty owns or has an exclusive license for when training their model, Stable Diffusion, resulting in the generated output containing substantial parts of that content. Getty is also alleging secondary copyright infringement, arguing that Stability is importing an article into the UK
Read More
June 26, 2025
Vietnam’s new Personal Data Protection Law (PDPL) was passed by the National Assembly on June 26, 2025, and will enter into force on January 1, 2026. The PDPL introduces several new concepts, exemptions, and obligations in comparison with the current Decree No. 13/2023/ND-CP on personal data protection (PDPD), while other contents remain essentially the same. The relationship between the PDPD and the PDPL has not been clearly addressed; however, it is expected that the government will issue a new decree providing necessary guidance on certain requirements under the PDPL, and the PDPD will remain in effect until it is replaced by this new decree. Some key points of the new PDPL include the following: Personal data will be further defined by lists of basic personal data and sensitive personal data to be issued by the government. The consent-centric approach of the PDPD remains in place, along with additional exemptions for certain data processing activities. The requirements for the data processing impact assessment (DPIA) and transfer impact assessment (TIA) remain unchanged. However, there are new exemptions for the TIA, including for the processing and storing in the cloud of employee data, and when the data subject is the person sending its own data outside of Vietnam. Consent obtained under the PDPD remains valid under the PDPL. DPIAs and TIAs submitted under the PDPD are valid under the PDPL but may need to be updated to be in line with the requirements of the PDPL. Administrative fines depend on the type of violation. The fine for sale and purchase of personal data will be 10 times the revenue from the sale or VND 3 billion (about USD 115,000), whichever is higher. The fine for cross-border transfer violations is 5% of the violator’s revenue of the preceding year or VND 3 billion,
Read More
June 25, 2025
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is no longer a distant innovation confined to science fiction and research labs; it has become an integral part of daily business operations worldwide. Employees across industries are adopting GenAI tools at a remarkable pace—including in Southeast Asia, where a tech-savvy workforce and widespread internet and mobile access have driven early adoption. The reality facing organizations today is clear: employees are integrating GenAI into their daily work, often without official approval or clear policies. This phenomenon, often called “Bring Your Own AI,” comes out of a disconnect between organizational governance and employee behavior and reveals the urgent need for proactive AI policies and oversight. For business leaders and legal teams, GenAI is both an opportunity and a challenge. On one hand, these tools can deliver real business value and boost efficiency. On the other, the unsanctioned and unmonitored use of GenAI introduces substantial legal risks, such as data privacy violations, confidentiality breaches, and intellectual property issues. The widespread adoption of GenAI tools by employees, regardless of official organizational stance or guidelines, demonstrates that prohibition is neither practical nor effective. A more strategic approach involves establishing comprehensive governance policies that encourage responsible AI use while managing the risks. Organizations that take the lead in developing GenAI governance policies are better positioned to benefit from its transformative potential. The question isn’t whether GenAI will change how we work, but how quickly organizations can put the right safeguards in place to manage this change successfully. Risks of GenAI Use The use of GenAI in business operations, whether sanctioned or not, exposes organizations to a unique set of risks. The following are particularly relevant: Data security and confidentiality: General GenAI tools in the market may transmit data to external servers, retain conversation histories, and use inputs for model training.
Read More
June 19, 2025
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has released draft guidelines establishing principles for managing artificial intelligence (AI) risks in the financial sector. The draft guidelines provide a structured framework for the responsible adoption of AI technologies. Financial service providers will be able to use the guidelines as a reference to appropriately manage their risks in a manner that aligns with internationally recognized best practices. The BOT is accepting public comments on the draft guidelines until June 30, 2025. Scope and Application The draft guidelines apply to all financial service providers, including financial institutions and special financial institutions under the Financial Institution Business Act, as well as payment providers under the Payment Systems Act. These guidelines supplement existing BOT risk management guidelines covering IT risk management, third-party risk management, data governance, and market conduct. The guidelines define AI systems as systems that mimic human intelligence, including machine learning, deep learning, generative AI (such as large language models), and agentic AI. This definition specifically excludes rule-based automation systems like robotic process automation and condition matching. Key Risk Management Principles The guidelines lay out two main principles in managing AI risk. Governance: Financial service providers should define and establish clear roles and responsibilities for their personnel and AI system supervision structures to uphold FEAT (fairness, ethics, accountability, and transparency) principles as follows: Stakeholder roles and responsibilities. Financial service providers should define roles and responsibilities for boards and executives on AI risk oversight. Responsibilities include establishing an AI system usage policy, designating personnel responsible for AI risk management, and building awareness of AI-related risk within the organization. AI system usage policy. The AI system usage policy should be aligned with organizational objectives, regulatory requirements, and FEAT principles. These policies should be reviewed regularly to respond to technological advancements and evolving risk profiles. Risk management
Read More