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​ 

June 23, 2026
On May 26, 2026, Thailand’s Department of Land Transport (DLT) published for public consultation a draft amendment to the Ministerial Regulation on Electronic Ride-Hailing Vehicles that would, for the first time, allow juristic persons (legal entities) to register vehicles as electronic ride-hailing cars—a right that currently belongs exclusively to natural persons, limited to one person per one vehicle. If finalized in its current form, the regulation would significantly expand the supply side of Thailand’s ride-hailing market by enabling corporate fleet operators to enter the space. The public comment period is open through June 24, 2026. Key Principles Under the Draft Regulation Under the proposed amendment, juristic persons that maintain a fleet of at least 50 vehicles will be permitted to register vehicles as electronic ride-hailing cars. This represents a fundamental shift from the current framework, which restricts registration to individual natural persons on a one-person-one-car basis. Vehicle Specifications Corporate-owned ride-hailing vehicles must meet the following requirements: Be brand new from the factory, or no more than two years old from first registration with no more than 20,000 km of use. Not be a vehicle that has been reconstructed or repaired after involvement in a serious accident affecting safety—a standard consistent with public transport vehicles (RorYor. 6). Be classified as small, medium, or large in accordance with ministerial or director-general specifications. The vehicles may be equipped with safety devices such as interior or exterior cameras (video/photo recording) and can retain the original factory color of the vehicle body (no mandatory color change is required). License Plates Corporate ride-hailing vehicles will use license plates of the same size, characteristics, and color as those for private passenger vehicles not exceeding seven seats (RorYor. 1), rather than public transport plates. Potential Impact The government has stated that the regulation is intended to: Promote
June 23, 2026
On May 14, 2026, Thailand published a ministerial regulation in the Government Gazette to prescribe measures for prevention and suppression of technology crimes. The regulation creates a comprehensive procedural framework for returning money and digital assets to victims of technology crimes. It will take effect 90 days after publication (in mid-August 2026), giving affected entities a limited window to prepare. Mandatory Reporting Obligations for Financial Institutions When a deposit account, e-money account, or digital asset wallet is frozen in connection with a technology crime, the relevant financial institution or business operator must report transaction data to the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) via AMLO’s designated electronic system. Required data elements include account numbers (sender and receiver), names, identification or passport numbers, legal entity registration numbers, phone numbers, remaining balance, damage amount, transaction reference numbers, and the bank case ID. Institutions that already share data through the information-sharing system under the emergency decree are deemed to have satisfied this reporting obligation, creating an incentive for platform participation. When the Royal Thai Police or the Department of Special Investigation seize or freeze assets related to technology crimes, they must provide AMLO with investigation reports, complaint evidence, money-trail data, and account statements. Notification and Claims Process Once the AMLO secretary-general approves verified reports of a technology crime, the account information of persons connected to the crime will be published in the Government Gazette, triggering a 90-day window for victims to file claims and for related persons to file objections. Officers will also publish details on AMLO’s electronic media and send registered mail to identified victims, which will be deemed received after 7 days domestically or 15 days internationally. Victims have 90 days from the date the crime is published in the Government Gazette to file claims through AMLO’s electronic system. Claims must include
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
June 11, 2026
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) has released a revised draft Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) for public hearing from May 12, 2026, to June 15, 2026. This is not merely an amendment to certain provisions of the current ETA, but a comprehensive redrafting of the entire act. The revised draft ETA introduces several significant changes from the current framework, with practical implications for businesses operating in Thailand. Unified Coverage of Public and Private Sectors The current law segregates government transactions into a separate chapter with distinct rules. The draft ETA eliminates this division, defining “transaction” to encompass civil and commercial juristic acts as well as administrative procedures, administrative contracts, and other acts of government agencies. Enhanced E-Signature Definition The definition of “electronic signature” is broadened to expressly include biometric data and refocused on identifying the signatory and demonstrating intent regarding the content of the electronic data. Shift in Burden of Proof When a party challenges the reliability of electronic data created using a “trusted electronic method” or a method prescribed by the ETDA, the burden of proof and the cost of proving unreliability shifts to the challenger. Introduction of New Digital Method Concepts The draft ETA introduces several new digital method concepts that are not currently recognized under the existing ETA framework. These include: Electronic timestamping (e-timestamp) Electronic registered delivery Electronic company seals Electronic stamp duty compliance Electronic identity authentication and verification Electronic transferable records (electronic bills of lading, promissory notes, and similar negotiable instruments) Recognition of Automated Systems and Electronic Contracting The draft ETA expressly recognizes the legal validity and enforceability of contracts formed through automated systems, including contracts concluded entirely between automated systems or between an automated system and a person. A party may not deny the binding effect of such contracts solely because no human review