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

May 13, 2024

Decree on Sanctions for Cybersecurity Violations in Vietnam Nearing Enactment

Subscribe to Updates

On May 2, 2024, Vietnam’s Ministry of Justice published on its online platform the most recent version of the draft decree on administrative sanctions for violations in the field of cybersecurity (“Draft Sanction Decree”) to gather feedback and contributions from the community and stakeholders. After receiving the Ministry of Justice’s assessment, the Ministry of Public Security (“MPS”), in charge of drafting the Draft Sanction Decree, may make further revisions before submitting it to the government for review and final decision on enactment. The decree is expected to have an effective date of June 1, 2024.

The stringent penalties for infringements involving personal data of the previous draft version remain in this Draft Sanction Decree—a sign of the proactive stance of the MPS in enforcing the Personal Data Protection Decree (“PDPD”).

Effective Date and Transitional Provisions

It is important to note that the Draft Sanction Decree does not impose any new obligations on organizations or individuals, and only sets out the administrative sanctions that could be imposed on violators as soon as June 1, 2024, which is indicated as the effective date in Article 49. This signals the MPS’s eagerness to begin taking enforcement actions against recalcitrant organizations and individuals that have not complied with the various obligations imposed on them under the Law on Network Information Security (enacted in 2015), the Law on Cybersecurity (enacted in 2018) and its guiding decree (Decree 53 – enacted in 2022), and the most recent PDPD (enacted in 2023).

Article 50.1 of the Draft Sanction Decree outlines the transitional provisions regarding administrative violations in the cybersecurity field. It clarifies that the decree does not have retroactive effect, by stating that violations occurring before its effective date, but discovered or under review after such effective date will be subject to the regulations on administrative sanctions in force at the time of the violation. Additionally, in cases where the Draft Sanction Decree either lacks sanctions or introduces lighter sanctions for past acts, those lighter provisions will prevail in handling the violations.

Adjustments to Fines and Penalties

The sanctions under the Draft Sanction Decree applicable to violations have been slightly adjusted, with changes to the amount of monetary fines, and the number of additional penalties and/or remedial measures applicable. Businesses will be happy to note that many of the fines in the chapter related to PDPD violations have been decreased compared to the previous draft. However, the maximum fixed monetary fine imposed by the Draft Sanction Decree is still VND 1 billion (approximately USD 40,000), as proposed in the previous draft, and the penalty of up to 5% of the violating enterprise’s turnover of the immediately preceding fiscal year in the Vietnamese market also still applies to certain extreme violations, including:

  • Second and subsequent violations of the regulations on personal data protection in marketing and advertising activities;
  • Second and subsequent violations of the regulations on illegal collection, transfer, purchase and sale of personal data; and
  • Disclosure or misplacement of the personal data of 5 million or more data subjects who are Vietnamese citizens.

In the case of cross-border disclosure or misplacement or cross-border transfer of the personal data of over 5 million data subjects who are Vietnamese citizens the fine can range from 3% to 5% of the enterprise’s prior fiscal year turnover in the Vietnamese market.

Additional penalties applicable to certain violations may also be imposed, including, among others, revocation of licenses for business lines requiring personal data collection, and confiscation of exhibits and means used for conducting violations. Remedial measures may also be imposed, including, among others, suspension from processing of personal data for 1-3 months; forcible destruction or unrecoverable deletion of personal data; and forcible return of illegal profits obtained from the violations; public apology. The Draft Sanction Decree reshuffled these additional penalties and remedial measures for some of the violations.

Other Changes to the Draft

Interestingly, the Draft Sanction Decree includes new language that would exclude weekends and national holidays from the 72-hour timeline to address requests related to data subjects’ rights and to notify the MPS of PDPD violations, unless the law stipulates otherwise. This might be a sign that the MPS is modifying its original stance and that the 72-hour timeline is referring to 72 hours of working days (i.e., 3 working days). The MPS also did not amend some references to a 48-hour timeline, which was introduced in the previous draft but was deemed to be a typo or a mistake.

Finally, the Draft Sanction Decree no longer includes Article 50.2 from the previous draft, which was meant to annul various penalties for administrative violations in the fields of post, telecommunications, radio frequencies, information technology, and electronic transactions under Decree No. 15/2020/ND-CP, as amended (“Decree 15”). It is thus expected that these sanctions will continue to apply even after the promulgation of the Draft Sanction Decree. However, according to the principle of handling administrative violations in Vietnam, a company cannot be fined twice for the same violation. Therefore, the authority may need to choose whether it wishes to apply the sanction under the Draft Sanction Decree or Decree 15.

Outlook

As this Draft Sanction Decree progresses through the final stages of adoption, stakeholders are encouraged to stay informed and promptly comply with the legal requirements applicable to them—especially with their obligations under the PDPD—before the Draft Sanction Decree takes force (expected to be June 1, 2024).

We will continue to monitor developments closely and provide updates as this important legislative process unfolds.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 13, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law) has undergone continuous amendment in recent years, with the latest amendment issued at the end of 2025. Among the amended and supplemented provisions, the regulation that has perhaps attracted the most attention is a provision relating to the use of protected IP objects by artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Specifically, Article 7 of the 2025 IP Law introduces a completely new Clause 5, which reads in full as follows: “Organizations and individuals are permitted to use texts and data relating to intellectual property objects that have been lawfully published, and which the public is allowed to access, for the purposes of scientific research, experimentation, and training of artificial intelligence systems, provided that such use will not unreasonably affect the legitimate rights and interests of the authors and intellectual property rights holders in accordance with this Law. With respect to texts and data that are objects protected by copyright and related rights, the use of the texts and data as set forth herein must also be in accordance with the regulations of the Government.” Analyzing this newly added provision in the context of how it was conceived, as well as the challenges that still lie ahead, can provide some interesting insights. From Aspirations to Flight in Science and Technology From the end of 2024 and throughout 2025—the 50th anniversary of the country’s reunification—Vietnam witnessed numerous sweeping changes in many areas, including legislative development. It could be said that no sessions of the National Assembly have ever adopted as many laws, resolutions, and major policies as this one. The aspirations of the highest-level leadership have been concretized into major law and policy projects, which were drafted, developed, and passed at record speed. All of this was aimed at building a foundation for Vietnam to achieve
Read More
March 12, 2026
Thailand’s AI legislative framework took another step forward when the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) issued a notification establishing guidelines for AI-generated advertising that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services. The notification, which is already in effect, was issued under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979) and its amendments, which prohibit advertising that is unfair to consumers or may cause harm to society, including false or exaggerated statements and statements that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services. The notification addresses emerging advertising practices, including the use of images edited using software or AI to attract consumer interest or build credibility. The OCPB noted that such advertising may result in consumers misunderstanding the essential characteristics, condition, or usage of products, which violates consumer rights and causes damage. Key Requirements on AI-Generated or Digitally Manipulated Advertising Content For advertisements using still images or videos created or edited with software programs or AI tools that may cause the depicted product or service to differ from the actual product sold or service provided—which may cause misunderstanding regarding the condition, quality, quantity, or other essential aspects of the products or services—advertisers and business operators must comply with the following requirements: Prior authorization. Obtain approval from relevant regulatory authorities where required by law. Accurate representation. Ensure that the advertised size, quantity, volume, number, or composition matches the actual product or service being sold, whether in still images or videos. Mandatory AI disclosure labels. Display clear disclosures when AI or software is used to create or edit images, such as: “Real image or simulation edited using AI” “Photo from actual location or simulation edited using AI” “Photo from actual product or edited simulation” “Image created by AI” “Video created by AI” Clarity of disclosure. Ensure disclosures are clearly visible,
Read More
March 10, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Finance and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have issued regulations broadening the criteria for determining who qualifies as a “major shareholder” of licensed securities and digital asset business operators. Under relevant SEC regulations, major shareholders of a regulated entity must obtain regulatory approval and undergo screening by the SEC. The revised framework introduces both shareholding-based and control-based tests to determine which shareholders require regulatory approval for a wider range of indirect ownership structures and de facto control. The Ministry of Finance notification took effect on February 21, 2026, while the SEC’s clarifying rules took effect on March 4, 2026. These changes aim to enhance transparency around beneficial ownership and strengthen regulatory oversight of entities operating in Thailand’s capital markets. Expanded Definition Under the revised framework, a “major shareholder” now includes persons who directly or indirectly hold more than 10% of the voting rights in a regulated company, as well as persons who exercise control over the regulated company or its shares. This system of two separate tests, based on both shareholding and control, differs from the prior regime, which focused primarily on shareholding thresholds and applied a more limited method for determining indirect shareholdings. The two tests (detailed below) operate independently of each other, and any person identified by either of the tests will be deemed a major shareholder. Shareholding-Based Test Broadens Indirect Ownership Attribution For the shareholding-based test, the SEC recognizes two existing methods for identifying indirect ownership, together with a new proportional attribution method. Any person captured under these methods, which are described below, will be regarded as a major shareholder of the regulated company and must obtain SEC approval as a major shareholder. First, the existing framework continues to apply to both first-tier and chain ownership structures. Approval is required for (1) first-tier
Read More
March 6, 2026
Thailand’s Legislation Consideration Committee of the Ministry of Interior has ruled that in-game loot boxes in online games do not constitute gambling under the Gambling Act B.E. 2478 (1935). This first-of-its-kind ruling provides useful guidance for online game operators and digital entertainment companies operating in Thailand. Background The ruling came in response to an inquiry concerning an online role-playing game operator that launched a campaign featuring a loot box mechanism. The mechanism allowed players to purchase a token in exchange for the opportunity to receive a virtual loot box containing randomized in-game items. The key features of this were as follows: The items received were digital, noncash items usable only within the game. The items could not be exchanged, redeemed, or converted into cash with the game operator. Items may differ in rarity but remain purely virtual. The central question was whether paying money to obtain randomized in-game items constituted a risk-based activity involving the chance to receive money or property of monetary value, which would constitute gambling under the Gambling Act. Committee Ruling The committee reached the following conclusions regarding the characteristics of the game’s loot-box mechanism: No cash or monetary equivalent: Players did not receive cash or property that could be exchanged for cash. The in-game items were merely usage rights within the online game ecosystem. No real-world monetary valuation: There was no determination of item value in real currency, and no mechanism for redeeming or converting items into money with the game operator. Any off-platform trading of in-game items between players is irrelevant to online game operators, as any value arising from such transactions is determined by the market rather than by the operators themselves. Service fee characterization: Payments made by players purchasing in-game loot boxes constituted fees for online game services. Accordingly, the committee concluded
Read More