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

February 17, 2012

E-Commerce in AEC: Vietnam’s Regulatory Framework

Informed Counsel

In 2010, more than 50 percent of surveyed businesses in Vietnam used electronic means, such as e-mail or websites, to carry out their trading activities. Over the past six years, Vietnam has developed a legal framework that aims to facilitate online transactions, provide confidence in their legal validity, and at the same time protect the interest of consumers. Behind this development was the commitment made by Vietnam and other ASEAN member countries to implement a harmonized legal infrastructure for e-commerce in the ASEAN Economic Community by 2015.

Background

The first e-ASEAN Reference Framework for Electronic Commerce Legal Infrastructure signed in 2001, among other things, aimed to help ASEAN members without e-commerce laws to accelerate the drafting of their own laws. These countries were advised to apply the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce (1996) when drafting their e-commerce laws. In 2005, Vietnam passed the Law on Electronic Transactions, which largely reflected the ideologies of the UNCITRAL Model Law.

The next step was to harmonize laws among member countries in order to facilitate free flow of goods and services. Consequently, the member states have created a Roadmap for an ASEAN Community for 2008–2015, in which member states were required to facilitate mutual recognition of foreign digital signatures in ASEAN by 2011 and to build a fully harmonized legal infrastructure for ASEAN e-commerce by 2015.

Electronic Signatures

The main vision behind the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce was to provide a set of laws that (1) ensured that paper documents and electronic transactions were treated equally by the law, and (2) did not discriminate between different forms of technology.

The current assessment of how well these principles have been applied in Vietnam is problematic. On the one hand, Article 11 of the Law on Electronic Transactions provides that any information in data messages cannot be disclaimed of legal validity only because such information is in the form of a data message.

On the other hand, when assessing Article 11 against provisions on e-signatures and further implementing regulations, it is questionable whether electronic transactions are treated equally with traditional transactions and whether the laws are neutral in terms of technology. Article 21 provides a broad definition of electronic signature as “created in the form of words, script, numerals, symbols, sounds or in other forms by electronic means, logically attached or associated with a data message and shall be capable of certifying the person who has signed the data message and certifying the approval by such person with respect to the content of the signed data message.” In different jurisdictions, electronic signatures are interpreted broadly and may even include a simple facsimiled signature or typed name in the e-mail. This broad definition allows foreign jurisdictions to hold various e-transactions as legally binding.

In Vietnam, Decree 26/2007/ND-CP stipulates that where the law requires a document to be signed or affixed with a seal of a body or institution, the requirement is satisfied if such a data message is signed by a digital signature. A digital signature should be distinguished from an electronic signature. Digital signatures are also called cryptographic signatures, as they use asymmetric cryptography to generate the signature. Therefore, when the law requires a seal or a signature, this requirement can only be met by a data message containing a specific technology—a digital signature, which is provided by a certified organization providing digital signature certification services in Vietnam.

However, Decree 56/2006/ND-CP on e-commerce stipulates that an e-document is regarded as having a signature of a party if the method used to identify the signatory and indicate the signatory’s approval of the signed e-document is sufficiently reliable for creating and interchanging e-documents. When reviewing the above with the implementing Circular 09/2008/TT-BCT, the interpretation follows that a consumer entering into a contract via a commercial website is not required to have a digital signature, if other methods were used to identify the consumer.

Mutual Recognition of Foreign Digital Signatures

According to Decree 26 and implementing regulations, in order for foreign signatures to be recognized as legally valid in Vietnam, the foreign digital signature certification service providers must obtain a certificate from the Ministry of Information and Communications, Obtaining this certificate is subject to conditions relating to international treaties, certification in the home country, digital signature reliability, and representative office presence in Vietnam to resolve issues.

A new regulation, Decree 106/2011, has been implemented recently to amend several provisions of Decree 26. The above requirements, however, have not been amended.

Consumer Protection

By 2011, Vietnam completed the implementation of a legal framework on consumer protection. The Law on Protection of Consumers’ Rights was passed in 2010 and implementing Decree 99/2011/ND-CP passed in late 2011. The regulations provide basic protection to consumers engaging in electronic transactions by requiring suppliers to provide certain information about the transaction to the consumer. Consumers are also given the default right to unilaterally terminate the contract if the supplier does not provide the information. The law allows disputes between consumers and organizations to be resolved by arbitration.

Conclusion

Although drastic steps have been taken to create a legal framework to regulate e-commerce in Vietnam, the implementing regulations are not always consistent with best practices. A more effective system for implementing mutual recognition of digital signatures is necessary for Vietnam to prepare for harmonization of e-commerce legal infrastructure in the AEC by 2015.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 11, 2026
On July 27, 2026, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) released a draft decree proposing amendments to Decree No. 52/2024/ND-CP dated May 15, 2024, on non-cash payments (Decree 52). The draft decree would amend 17 of Decree 52’s 38 articles, with several key changes directly affecting providers of intermediary payment service (IPS). The key proposed changes affecting IPS providers are outlined below. Streamlining IPS Licensing Procedures A central objective of the draft decree is to simplify regulatory procedures for IPS providers. Notably, it would significantly reduce IPS licensing documentation requirements by removing the need to submit enterprise registration certificates, investment registration certificates, and documents evidencing the qualifications of the legal representative and general director. Instead, the SBV would retrieve this information directly from national business registration and other specialized databases, requesting additional documents only where the relevant information cannot be verified electronically or is incomplete. The draft decree also removes the current limit of two rounds for dossier supplementation and shortens processing timelines for several IPS licensing procedures such as issuance, amendment, and reissuance of IPS licenses. The processing time for new IPS license applications would be thereby reduced from 90 to 60 working days. In addition, several continuing IPS business conditions would be removed. For example, IPS providers would no longer be required to maintain certain representations relating to corporate restructuring or the legality of contributed capital. Likewise, the IPS project plan (đề án) would become a one-time application document rather than an ongoing licensing condition. If retained in the final decree, this change could provide IPS providers with significantly greater flexibility to implement post-licensing technology upgrades, system integrations, and corporate restructuring transactions without needing to revisit the originally approved project plan. The draft decree also removes the requirement for the SBV to consult the Ministry of Public
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
August 10, 2026
On July 31, 2026, Thailand’s Big Data Institute (BDI) launched a public consultation on the principles of a proposed new data-sharing law, with comments accepted until August 31, 2026. If enacted, the law would establish Thailand’s first comprehensive framework for government and private-sector data sharing, creating a systematic, secure, and transparent regime to support analytics, policymaking, research, and innovation. Central Data-Sharing Platform The draft law establishes a central system for data sharing, managed by the BDI. Government agencies would be required to connect to the BDI’s Data Integration and Intelligence Platform (also referred to as D2), in accordance with the BDI’s rules and procedures. Five Dimensions of Data Sharing The draft law covers five key types of data sharing between government (G), businesses (B), and consumers (C): G2B: Private organizations may request government data specifically for research and development purposes. The BDI will assess the applicant’s data governance, security, and privacy capabilities whether such measures meet prescribed standards before forwarding the request to the relevant government agency within 90 days. Any dispute may be escalated to a newly established Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for final determination. G2G: Government agencies may request data from other agencies through the central system. The data-holding agency must respond within 90 days, taking legality, necessity, proportionality, public interest, and personal data protection into account. Disputes may be referred to the Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for adjudication. B2G: In emergency situations involving public safety, economic security, or disaster response, the Minister of Digital Economy and Society may require private entities to provide data through the central data-sharing system. Government agencies must specify the data requested, demonstrate its necessity and expected benefits, and request only data reasonably available to the data holder. Requests for personal data must be limited to the minimum amount necessary. B2C: Royal decrees may
August 10, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) recently released draft guidance on records of processing activities (ROPA) for personal data controllers and processors under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The draft guidance, which was presented to the public on July 7, 2026, addresses both controller records of collection, use, and disclosure of personal data and processor records of processing activities carried out on behalf of controllers. If implemented, the guidance will significantly expand organizational expectations for ROPA preparation, maintenance, and use across all sectors. Key Takeaways The draft guidance contains several important implications for organizations subject to the PDPA: ROPA reframed as a core accountability tool. The guidance elevates ROPA from an administrative record to a central accountability mechanism, connecting controller duties with recordkeeping obligations. ROPA as a source for privacy notices and governance documents. ROPA should serve as the primary source for privacy notices and align with consent management, retention schedules, DPIAs, incident response plans, and vendor contracts. Expanded scope across all activities. ROPA must cover all processing activities across the organization—including security, finance, HR, and external contractors—with correct controller or processor classification for each. Ongoing maintenance and auditability. ROPA must be updated for any change to systems, purposes, or processors, reviewed at least annually, and maintained with version control and a designated owner. Enhanced vendor, processor, and cross-border transfer requirements. Organizations must document all processors, external recipients, and cross-border transfers, specifying purposes, access scope, and destination countries. Linkage with risk assessment, DPIAs, and LIAs. ROPA should assign risk levels to each activity and identify when data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) or legitimate interests assessments (LIAs) are required, functioning as a risk-management tool. ROPA and data breach readiness. Incomplete ROPA can delay breach response and notification. Organizations should map data flows, vendors,