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​ 

April 23, 2026
Vietnam has progressively positioned blockchain as a strategic technology within its broader digital transformation agenda over the past decade. From early policy orientations to more recent legislative developments, the regulatory approach has gradually shifted from high-level recognition to more concrete legal integration. Against this backdrop, a new draft decree regulating activities relating to product and goods identification, authentication, and traceability (the “Draft Decree”) marks a notable turning point. Rather than merely referencing blockchain as a policy priority, the Draft Decree incorporates blockchain directly into a nationwide regulatory system, positioning it as part of the underlying infrastructure for data governance and public administration in relation to the management, verification, and traceability of product-related data. Evolution of Vietnam’s Blockchain Legal Framework: The Draft Decree in Context Vietnam’s blockchain legal framework has developed in several distinct phases. The first phase, beginning around 2019, was characterized by high-level policy recognition in several resolutions of the Party Central Committee. Particularly, blockchain was identified as part of the broader category of digital technologies critical to industrial modernization and participation in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. These resolutions did not regulate blockchain directly, but established its strategic importance at the national level. The second phase (2023 to 2025) saw the introduction of national strategies and technology policies that more explicitly recognized blockchain as a priority technology. Those policies collectively signaled a clear policy commitment to developing blockchain infrastructure and applications. However, these instruments remained largely at a policy-level and did not establish binding regulatory frameworks. The third phase (from 2025) involves the gradual integration of blockchain into sectoral legislation. Laws such as the Law on Digital Technology Industry (2025), the Law on Personal Data Protection (2025), and the Law on Science, Technology, and Innovation (2025) have introduced concepts such as digital assets, crypto assets, and even specific
April 21, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) has launched a public consultation period on a draft notification setting out criteria for data subject access requests (DSARs). The draft notification addresses practical uncertainties in handling DSARs by introducing standardized procedural requirements for data controllers. The consultation period runs from April 16 to May 15, 2026. The notification will enter into force 30 days from the date of its publication in the Government Gazette. Key Features of the Draft Notification The draft notification covers the following key areas: Scope of information subject to access. Data controllers must enable data subjects to access at least the following upon request: (1) personal data collected directly from them; (2) personal data obtained from other sources; and (3) the source of personal data obtained from other sources without consent. Information required under section 23 of the PDPA and information that must be recorded pursuant to section 39 of the PDPA—such as the categories of personal data collected and purposes of processing—must also be made available. Submission channels and formal requirements. Data controllers must provide at least in-person and postal channels for DSARs, while electronic or other channels are optional. Requests may be made either directly by the data subject or through an authorized representative, and must be signed and include sufficient identifying information, a preferred response method, and DSAR details. Identity verification documents (and proof of authority if the request is through a representative) are required, and additional documentation may be requested for verification or communication purposes. Data controllers may use different verification methods for DSARs submitted via electronic or other channels, provided this does not create undue obstacles to the exercise of data subject rights. Verification and response timelines. Data controllers must complete preliminary verification within seven business days of receiving a request. If a
April 10, 2026
Thailand has introduced new regulatory guidance requiring digital platform operators to adopt structured, transparent, and fair fee practices. On March 16, 2026, the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) published Announcement No. DPS 2/2569, titled “Guidelines for Transparency and Fairness in Digital Platform Service Fee Determination,” issued under the Royal Decree on Digital Platform Service Business Operations B.E. 2565 (2022). The guidelines establish a framework governing how digital platform operators should set, disclose, and adjust fees charged to users and related service providers such as logistics and payment providers. Although framed as best-practice guidance rather than legally binding rules with explicit penalties, the guidelines carry regulatory weight under the royal decree and represent a significant step toward structured governance of digital platform fee practices in Thailand. The guidelines establish various transparency principles and divide fees into two distinct categories—compulsory and additional—with specific governance principles for each. Transparency Principles The guidelines recommend that digital platform operators adopt several transparency measures to ensure that users can fully understand the costs of using a platform. Fee catalog. All fees should be consolidated into a single, accessible location, which should include the fee name, definition, scope of covered services, calculation methodology, rate, billing period, and calculation examples. Minimum service disclosure. Operators should disclose the minimum service that users can expect, such as baseline visibility, product listing capabilities, access to transaction data, and back-end dashboard access. Price structure disclosure. Operators should disclose the categories of costs underlying their fees, such as system maintenance, cybersecurity, and operational costs. While exact cost figures need not be made public, operators should be able to provide numerical data to regulators upon request. Clear fee formulas. Fee calculations should be simple and easy to understand—for example, percentage of net sales, cost per order, or cost per product listing. Operators should
April 10, 2026
As digital commerce continues to reshape consumer behavior in Thailand, the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) has been taking steps to review and update key regulations for online platforms. The OCPB has had a particular focus on addressing the risks posed by e-marketplace businesses—from misleading product information to fraudulent online transactions. Some of the regulator’s current legislative efforts related to Thailand’s labeling regulations as well as potential changes to the country’s law on direct sales and marketing. Proposed Changes to Consumer Protection Labeling Regulations On February 24, 2026, the OCPB convened a public hearing to review the Notification of the Committee on Labels re: Specification of Goods as Controlled Label Goods B.E. 2565 (2022) and its annex issued under the Consumer Protection Act. The closed-door session, which started the OPCD’s process of seeking feedback on the proposed changes, brought together representatives from government agencies, business operators, and consumer groups. The OCPB explained that its review of the labeling regulations aims to address regulatory gaps arising from evolving commercial practices, particularly the expansion of e-commerce and cross-border transactions. Authorities highlighted recurring issues involving product information that is unclear, incomplete, or potentially misleading in digital sales channels. The proposed revisions are intended to improve consumers’ access to accurate and complete product information, ensure that label disclosures remain relevant amid the growth of e-commerce, and strengthen protections against deceptive or misleading digital advertising. The review is being undertaken pursuant to the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979). As part of the initiative, the OCPB signaled a potential update to the categories of “controlled label products” as well as enhanced disclosure obligations for business operators, with the broader aim of promoting greater transparency, reinforcing operator accountability, and aligning Thailand’s labeling framework with current market conditions. The OCPB secretary general emphasized that