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

April 3, 2026

Draft Decree Has New Measures to Address Online IP Infringement in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates

On March 16, 2026, Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security released a draft version of a new Decree on the Prevention and Combating of Cybercrime and High-Tech Crime to replace the currently effective Decree 25/2014/ND-CP. In the draft, the ministry has proposed a comprehensive regulatory framework aimed at addressing violations occurring within the cybersecurity domain, including measures related to intellectual property.

Acts of Online IP Infringement

Article 9 of the draft decree notably introduces specific provisions addressing online intellectual property infringement, with detailed lists of acts considered to constitute infringement in the online environment.

Copyright and related rights infringement includes:

  • Uploading or sharing works, performances, sound recordings, video recordings, broadcasts, computer programs, software, research, documents, theses, or other intellectual creations on digital platforms without the consent of the rights holder.
  • Unauthorized livestreaming of copyrighted television programs, sporting events, or artistic performances.
  • Uploading, sharing, storing, transmitting, or providing links to infringing works or digital content via websites, social networks, applications, or digital platforms.
  • Providing or using software, tools, devices, or access codes to circumvent technological protection measures or evade lawful control mechanisms implemented by rights holders.
  • Using artificial intelligence (AI) tools to replicate the ideas or structure of another person’s work without significant new creativity or without proper attribution, thereby causing damage to the original author.

Industrial property infringement includes:

  • Manufacturing, trading, advertising, or distributing counterfeit goods bearing counterfeit trademarks, geographical indications, or industrial designs, as well as goods infringing industrial property rights through online platforms.
  • Unauthorized registration, appropriation, or use of domain names, account names, or digital identifiers that create confusion regarding the rights holder or the origin of goods or services.
  • Producing, using, or offering for sale products containing all or part of a patented invention via online platforms.
  • Advertising or introducing products with technical features or characteristics identical to those of protected inventions.

In addition to direct infringement, the draft decree also targets supporting and facilitating activities, including:

  • Failing to comply with takedown procedures or intentionally maintaining infringing content after receiving valid notification from rights holders or competent authorities.
  • Facilitating infringement by providing advertising services or payment gateway services to websites hosting infringing content.
  • Establishing or operating websites, applications, e-commerce platforms, online storefronts, channels, groups, or intermediary accounts that organize, support, or facilitate IP infringement.
  • Gaining unlawful profits from infringing activities through advertising, subscriptions, digital payments, payment intermediaries, or other monetization methods in cyberspace.
  • Concealing or legitimizing the origin of infringing goods or digital content, or obstructing the detection, removal, or handling of infringing acts.
  • Other acts conducted via cyberspace that infringe IP rights.

Notable Implications

Several aspects of the draft decree merit particular attention.

  • Expanded enforcement authority for police authorities: The police are granted enforcement authority to take action against infringements involving patents, industrial designs, domain names, and other areas. Such authority has not been clearly provided under existing regulations.
  • Introduction of AI-related copyright provisions: New provisions addressing the use of AI to generate works that may infringe copyright reflect growing regulatory attention to emerging risks associated with generative technologies.
  • New definitions related to industrial property infringement: Some new concepts are introduced, including “counterfeit industrial design goods,” “products containing all or part of a patented invention,” and “products having technical features identical to a protected invention.” These definitions could significantly affect enforcement practices involving industrial property rights.
  • Regulation of contributory infringement: The draft decree explicitly targets supporting or facilitating activities, such as providing advertising services or payment systems to infringing platforms—areas that previously lacked clear regulatory provisions.

Outlook

Although some provisions remain broad and may require further clarification through implementing guidelines, the draft decree represents a significant advancement in Vietnam’s regulatory approach to addressing online IP infringement, and signals a major policy shift by authorities toward strengthening enforcement mechanisms against IP infringement in the digital environment.

If adopted in its current or similar form, the regulation is likely to expand enforcement exposure, particularly for online platforms, intermediaries, and service providers involved in digital ecosystems.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 21, 2026
On January 16, 2026, Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Committee released for public comment a draft notification that would require social media platforms operating in Thailand to implement identity verification for all user accounts and advertisers, with enhanced scrutiny for high-risk advertising activities. If finalized in its current form, the Notification on Measures to Prevent Technology Crime for Social Media Service Providers would take effect 180 days after publication in the Government Gazette, fundamentally changing how platforms verify users and monetize advertising services. The public comment period is open through February 2, 2026. Mandatory User and Advertiser Identity Verification The draft establishes a universal requirement that all social media service providers implement identity verification measures for every user account. The draft imposes stricter verification obligations for advertisers than for general users. Before publishing any advertisement, platforms must verify the advertiser’s identity at a level sufficient to identify the advertiser, unless the advertiser has previously completed verification. Risk-Based Advertisement Verification The identification requirements for advertisers will be more stringent in the following cases: The advertiser has a history of user complaints or has previously violated the platform’s terms of service. The advertisement involves finance, investment, loans, sensitive personal data, or content flagged as potentially involving cybercrime. The advertisement specifically targets vulnerable groups, such as the elderly or other at-risk demographics. In such cases, platforms must conduct identity verification using government-issued identification documents and must confirm the accuracy, authenticity, and currency of these documents with the issuing government agencies. Alternatively, platforms may verify identity through an eligible digital identity verification and authentication system provider. Information Retention Platforms must retain specific information for each advertiser, including the name of the individual or juristic person and any representatives, government-issued identification documents such as ID cards, passports, or certificates of incorporation, and reachable contact information including
Read More
January 21, 2026
Spurred by global geopolitics and Canada’s Indo-Pacific Strategy, which aims to forge deeper ties with ASEAN, Canadian companies have been showing growing interest in Thailand and Southeast Asia in recent years. To understand the opportunities offered by the region, we sat down with Andrew Stoutley, a Toronto native and the chief operating officer of Tilleke & Gibbins, a leading Southeast Asian regional law firm with over 130 years of history in Thailand. Q: Why are Canadian companies looking at Thailand and Southeast Asia right now? A: Two reasons stand out. First, diversification has moved up the agenda. Many Canadian companies want options outside North America due to tariff volatility and policy uncertainty in the United States, as well as questions around the next Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement mandatory joint review. At the same time, the shift of global production from China to Southeast Asia is accelerating, driven by rising costs, geopolitics, and the need to avoid overreliance on a single market. As a result, Canadian companies are looking for a second production base or a regional hub, and Thailand and its neighbors are natural choices given their manufacturing depth, location, and established supply chains. Second, Canada’s own efforts in the region are gaining traction. The Indo-Pacific Strategy has led to more on-the-ground support, including larger trade missions, upgraded diplomatic posts, and new financing options. Export Development Canada (EDC) now has a presence in Bangkok, giving Canadian companies a direct line to financing and insurance in Thailand. There’s also steady progress on trade frameworks like the recently signed Canada–Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (which will come into effect pending domestic procedures), ongoing negotiations of a Canada–ASEAN FTA, and the exciting announcement about the launch of negotiations of a Canada–Thailand FTA. Together, these developments have the potential to make it much easier
Read More
January 13, 2026
On January 9, 2026, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a criminal complaint with the Economic Crime Suppression Division (ECD) against five individuals for unauthorized operation of a digital-asset dealer business under the Emergency Decree on Digital Asset Businesses B.E. 2561 (2018). This precedent-setting case signals that the regulator is willing to pursue crypto enforcement against natural persons even in the absence of a licensed platform entity. Background and Implications The case follows the SEC’s October 2025 public warning about the use of iris-scanning technology in exchange for certain digital tokens. In its warning, the SEC cautioned that exchanging or trading these specific tokens with unlicensed service providers exposes users to heightened fraud, scam, and money laundering risks. Unlike prior regulatory enforcement matters, which involved platform-level administrative fines for operational or compliance failures, this case targets misconduct by individuals who may not be professional traders but openly advertised their willingness to buy these tokens from the public, opened individual over-the-counter (OTC) trade channels for these tokens, and facilitated off-exchange transactions in a manner resembling ordinary commercial dealing. This enforcement action establishes a clear precedent that natural persons engaging in public-facing digital-asset dealing may face criminal liability under Thai law, even without operating through a corporate or licensed platform structure. Outlook The alleged offenders may not settle this crime by payment of fines. Following the SEC’s referral, the ECD will undertake further investigation, after which prosecutors may review the case and proceed to court. The SEC has stated that it will cooperate fully with enforcement agencies throughout the criminal enforcement process.
Read More
January 9, 2026
Vietnam has taken a decisive step into the global artificial intelligence regulatory landscape with the promulgation of the Law on Artificial Intelligence No. 134/2025/QH15 (AI Law), adopted on December 10, 2025, and effective from March 1, 2026. As one of the earliest comprehensive, standalone AI statutes in Southeast Asia, the AI Law signals Vietnam’s ambition to position itself as both an innovation-friendly and governance-conscious AI market. In doing so, the legislature has also streamlined Vietnam’s AI regulatory architecture. The AI Law repeals most AI-related provisions previously embedded in the Law on Digital Technology Industry No. 71/2025/QH15, consolidating AI governance under a single, unified legal framework. This structural move underscores an intent to provide greater regulatory clarity and coherence for businesses operating across the AI value chain. Against this backdrop, the key question for AI developers, providers, deployers, and governance teams is how the new risk-based framework will shape compliance expectations, operational decisions, and governance design in practice. This article examines the new AI Law through that practical lens, focusing on what it means for AI businesses operating in or into Vietnam. Scope of Application The AI Law applies broadly to Vietnamese organizations and individuals, as well as foreign entities that participate in AI-related activities within Vietnam. The law expressly excludes AI activities conducted solely for national defense, security, and cryptography purposes. A defining feature of the AI Law is that it regulates by role, not by industry. It distinguishes between: Developers, who design, build, train, test, or fine-tune AI models and have direct control over the technical methods, training data, or model parameters; Providers, who place AI systems on the market or put them into use under their own names; Deployers, who use AI systems under their control in professional, commercial, or service-provision activities; Users, who interact with AI
Read More