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 24, 2025

Draft Guidance on Vietnam’s New Data Law Open for Public Consultation

Following Vietnam’s adoption of the new Law on Data (“Data Law”) on November 30, 2024, there remained uncertainty as to what impact the new framework would have on businesses in Vietnam and abroad. The government has now released a package of four draft legal documents aimed at guiding the implementation of the Data Law: (1) a decree on the National Data Development Fund (“NDDF Decree”), (2) a decree related to regulations on scientific, technological, and innovation activities and data products and services (“Decree on Specific Activities”), (3) a decree detailing a number of articles and measures to implement the Data Law (“Implementation Decree”), and (4) a decision on the lists of important data and core data. This article will provide an overview of the draft legislation.

1. NDDF Decree

The draft NDDF Decree relates to the establishment, management and use of a National Data Development Fund (“NDDF”), which is a non-profit and non-budgetary state financial fund established and managed by the Minister of the Ministry of Public Security (MPS). The NDDF has legal personality and is fully state owned, operating similarly to a single-member limited liability company. Its main objectives are to support, promote, and invest in artificial intelligence (AI), the Internet of Things (IoT), and other new technologies and innovation.

The NDDF may lend to, invest in, or otherwise support eligible organizations. The draft NDDF Decree also proposes a series of regulations on donations to the NDDF and from the NDDF (through expense support), the lending activities of the NDDF to commercial banks, which will in turn lend to eligible organizations, the investment activities in data products and services innovative start-ups, and other kinds of support.

The government commits to provide VND 1 trillion (approx. USD 40 million) to the NDDF, evidencing the importance the government places on fostering a thriving ecosystem for data product and service development, and its wish to position Vietnam as a center of innovation. However, the NDDF also intends to rely on donations. It remains to be seen whether the NDDF will operate effectively to boost the technology and data-related developments.

2. Decree on Specific Activities

The Decree on Specific Activities focuses on two main matters: regulations related to data products and services, and the creation of a regulatory sandbox to foster innovation.

Data Products and Services

The chapter on data intermediary products and services of the draft Data Law had been stripped down before enactment. The details are now prescribed in this draft decree under Chapter III, covering (i) data intermediary products and services, (ii) data analysis and aggregation services, and (iii) data marketplaces.

Data intermediary activities have now been clarified and include, among others, activities of representing data subjects and data owners to connect, share, exchange, and access data with service users; data management services; data cooperation and sharing services; etc.

Providers of data intermediary products and services between the service users and the state agencies must be fully registered and licensed, while other service providers can request the MPS to appraise them to unlock the same benefits as enterprises operating in high-tech, innovative, creative start-ups and the digital technology industry.

Further, the draft Decree on Specific Activities creates new personal data protection obligations for providers of data intermediary products and services, while personal data is not the main object of the Data Law. Among the new requirements, the obligation to limit the transfer of personal data abroad and ensure that the standard of protection is equivalent to the standard required by relevant laws has been inserted. As the government is currently developing the Personal Data Protection Law (more details here), it is unclear why it is also inserting such provision under the Data Law framework.

Businesses engaged in data intermediary products and services or data analysis and aggregation will need to take into account the personnel requirements that are reinserted in the draft Decree on Specific Activities. The head of the organization must be a Vietnamese citizen and permanent resident, with a university degree, who has directly managed a large scale data center and has at least three years of experience related to data management. This poses a significant issue for industry players, considering talent is scarce on the global scene, and in Vietnam. Further, the requirement for a minimum charter capital has been replaced by a mandatory deposit in a commercial bank operating in Vietnam of VND 5 billion (approx. USD 200,000). It is still unclear whether the cross-border provision of such products and services is possible and whether foreign businesses would be subject to the same requirements. The same requirements will apply to data marketplace service providers, but this is likely to pose lesser problems considering this business activity is restricted to non-business units or state-owned enterprises.

Data analysis and aggregation services are now categorized into four levels depending on the level of human supervision and the role of the products and services in the decision-making process. Licensing requirements will apply to automated decision-making, with or without human supervision, and to products and services using data from national databases. Here again, to unlock incentives, an organization that is not subject to the licensing requirements can request the MPS to conduct an appraisal. Biannual or annual reports on service provision must be sent to the management agency, based on a statutory form.

Data marketplace service providers include providers of data auction services, but also services to provide an environment for data trading and exchange and data-related product and services, and other services related to bidding, offering, introducing, representing, supporting and other activities related to data trading. Such data marketplace service providers must ensure that the channels to receive information and the use of the services are continuous 24/7, and publicly display service charges, prices, terms of use, and applicable conditions. They must also report biannually or annually to the management agency. All data products on the data marketplace must be authenticated with data origins. Organizations and individuals are responsible for the contents they post on data marketplaces and cannot auction at a price lower than the input fee for data products and services, ensuring fair competition. It is still unclear how private organizations will be able to leverage their data with these new marketplaces.

Regulatory Sandbox

Th draft Decree on Specific Activities also suggests the establishment of the necessary regulatory framework for a sandbox for research and application of science, technology, and innovation in the construction, development, protection, administration, processing and use of data as foreshadowed by Article 24.4 of the Data Law. This sandbox would be created to promote research and create a testing environment to assess the risks, costs and benefits of innovative products and services while limiting the risk to users of such products and services.

Participating in the sandbox is subject to being granted a certificate of testing activities – details of the application procedure being further described in the draft decree. The right to participate in the sandbox does not equal the right to provide the innovative products and services on the market. For any organization that is not allowed to participate in the sandbox, they are still encouraged to innovate but must do so within the applicable regulations at the time.

The draft Decree on Specific Activities sets out the obligations and the rights of the participating organizations, but also creates exemptions from liability with the aim to encourage innovation and creativity. The Ministry of Science and Technology is notably tasked to formulate detailed regulations on such exceptions, and other mechanisms and policies to foster innovation in Vietnam.

The government’s intention appears to be giving priority to innovative solutions in AI, cloud computing, blockchain, data communication, IoT, big data and other modern technologies. The draft decree notably suggests incentives to attract talent and FDI in these sectors.

3. Implementation Decree

The draft Implementation Decree provides clarification on many outstanding issues pursuant to the Data Law, notably (i) the mandatory provision of data to state agencies upon request, (ii) the cross-border transfer of data, and (iii) data protection measures.

Mandatory Provision of Data to State Agencies

The procedure applicable to the provision of data to state agencies upon request has been clarified to a certain extent. The draft Implementation Decree sets out that ministers, heads of ministerial level agencies, and presidents of provincial-level People’s Committees are competent to request data from organizations, ensuring such requests are emanating from a high-level rank. Such requests must be made in writing, unless it is impossible, and must specify the data requested, the purpose, the processing period, the legal basis for the request, the time limit to provide the data and the sanction for not providing such data. The data handover must be recorded in minutes. However, the organization receiving the request has the right to request amendment or withdrawal of the request. The extent of the data that can be requested has not been further limited or clarified, but the requesting agencies must respect the lawful purpose of the data manager and data owner and must protect business secrets and personal secrets.

Cross-Border Transfer of Data

With an aim to clarify what is included in the definition of “core” and “important” data, the Implementation Decree provides criteria to determine the category of the data, based on its degree of impact on a specific field, group, or region that may have an impact on national defense, security, foreign affairs, macroeconomics, social stability, or public health and safety (excluding trade secrets).

“Core data” will notably comprise some sensitive governmental information like guidelines and policies of the Vietnamese Communist Party and the state on domestic and external relations; strategies and plans to protect the fatherland; organization and operations of the armed forces; data on plans for collection, exchange, and issuance of money; data on natural resources and the environment, and newly discovered microbial strains and varieties related to human health and life; processes to produce medicinal herbs and rare biological drugs; and data on inspection, examination, denunciation and prevention of corruption.

“Important data” will notably comprise information that may affect national security, the Vietnamese Communist Party, the state and the socialist regime, major overseas projects, safety of overseas energy sources, security of international cooperation, infrastructure of important economy sectors; and the life, health, honor, dignity, property, and legitimate rights of organizations and individuals. The latter being very broad, as further discussed in section (4) regarding the Decision below. Due attention should be paid to the development of the Implementation Decree and the Decision to ensure that it does not impede the free flow of data, considering Vietnam’s commitment not to restrict data flows under numerous international treaties and agreements.

The transfer of core and important data outside of Vietnam is subject to additional requirements, notably the data owner must conduct a risk assessment and establish an impact assessment dossier. For core data, the transfer can only be made once the “satisfactory assessment results” have been obtained from the MPS or the Ministry of National Defense, as the case may be. For important data, the transfer can be made when the assessment is submitted and the transferor has not received objection from the authorities within the regulated timeline, but the MPS and the Ministry of National Defense can request the data transferor to stop the transfer if the impact assessment is not sufficiently supplemented following such request from the authorities. An important point to note is that the draft Implementation Decree also restricts the disclosure of data domestically by imposing other impact assessment requirements, with stricter regulations being proposed for the sharing of core and important data.

Further, notwithstanding the category of data being transferred abroad, the data transferor must ensure the protection of the legitimate rights and interest of the data subject, national defense and security, and national interests and public interests. It must also enter into an agreement with the recipient, in which mandatory content has finally been clarified.

Data Protection Measures

Additional guidance is also provided on the measures to implement risk management related to data processing with lists of technical and organizational measures being proposed. This has long been requested by the private sector to better understand the expectations of the authorities in terms of data protection. Consequently, core and important data are subject to additional security measures. This multi-layered approach to data protection aligns with international standards and ensures that measures are implemented in accordance with the sensitivity of the related data.

In addition, the draft Implementation Decree provides that, when the data owner needs to transfer data in the context of merger, reorganization, or bankruptcy, such data owner needs to prepare a plan for such transfer and to notify impacted users via phone call, text message, email, or notice.

It is worth noting that many of the measures being imposed are inspired by best practices in personal data protection (e.g., record of processing activities, access controls, training of employees, proper deletion and destruction procedures, etc.). Although one would understand why such measures would be relevant in the case of core and important data, the requirements would be very burdensome for “ordinary” data processing. The scope of application of the Data Law (and its future guiding decrees) will cover any organization participating in or related to digital data activities. As digital data is simply data in digital form, the application scope is very broad, and the obligations far-reaching.

4. Decision on Lists of Important Data and Core Data

The draft decision lists out types of important data and core data for the implementation of the Data Law, especially the regulations on cross-border data transfer discussed above. There are 24 types of core data and 18 types of important mentioned in the decision. Enterprises will need to pay special attention to the following types of important data, among others, to ensure future compliance:

  • Data in the field of healthcare (e.g., data on the health records and biometrics of Vietnamese citizens, if 10,000 or more people are involved);
  • Data in the field of finance and budget (e.g., data on insurance contracts, insurance amounts, insurance claim records, and insurance claim amounts for 10,000 or more customers);
  • Data in the field of information and communication (e.g., data that can be used for social mobilization, internet behavior data of more than 100,000 users, etc.);
  • Basic personal data of 1 million or more people, other sensitive personal data of 10,000 or more people.

Next Steps

The draft decrees are open for public consultation until March 17, 2025, while the timeline is unclear for the draft decision. This might be the last opportunity for the private sector to advocate for a more business-friendly regulatory framework, as the Data Law is entering into force on July 1, 2025, and the guiding decrees and decision are expected to follow the same timeline.

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
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,
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
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