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 9, 2026
As part of its ongoing public consultation process for the development of new practical guidelines under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) held a two‑day public hearing on April 1–2, 2026. The hearing followed an online questionnaire and stakeholder engagement activities conducted in March 2026 and reflects the PDPC’s continued efforts to develop guidance that aligns international regulatory standards with Thai operational realities. The public hearing provided a forum for participants from both the public and private sectors to exchange views with the PDPC on the proposed guidance so that it responds to the needs of the business community while supporting effective and balanced enforcement of the PDPA. The PDPC emphasized that the consultation process is part of a wider policy objective to build trust in the convenient, secure, and internationally aligned exchange of data. Structure of the Consultation Process According to the PDPC, the initiative to develop the draft PDPA guidelines is being implemented through three core phases: Review of international best practices. The PDPC has conducted a comparative review of data protection guidance and regulatory approaches in jurisdictions with internationally recognized standards, including Singapore, the United Kingdom, the European Union (EU), and Japan. These materials are intended to serve as a reference point for developing practical recommendations across key subject areas under the PDPA. Identification of practical issues and challenges. To ensure that the guidelines respond to real‑world compliance challenges in Thailand, the PDPC has gathered views from a broad range of stakeholders across the public sector, the private sector, and the general public. This phase included focus group discussions and questionnaires aimed at identifying areas to provide organizations with greater clarity and consistency on regulatory expectations. Preparation of draft guidelines. Insights from the comparative study and stakeholder
April 3, 2026
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
April 3, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has established a comprehensive governance framework for the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) in the capital markets. The framework provides guidance to capital market business operators on understanding the risks associated with AI/ML implementation and adopting appropriate practices to build public confidence in Thailand’s capital markets. While the guidelines are principle-based rather than prescriptive, they reflect the SEC’s expectations for responsible AI/ML governance and are likely to inform supervisory activities and industry standards going forward. Scope The framework applies to capital market business operators supervised by the SEC. This includes, for example, securities and derivatives firms, asset management companies, mutual fund and private fund managers, investment advisors and investment consultants (including robo-advisory service providers), derivatives intermediaries, and other licensed intermediaries and market operators in the Thai capital markets that deploy AI/ML in their operations. Core Principles of the Guidelines The framework is presented as a best-practice manual rather than prescriptive regulation, providing guidance that regulated entities may apply to their AI/ML governance and risk management as appropriate. While currently nonbinding, the guidelines signal the SEC’s expectations for the sector, particularly in relation to other binding SEC regulations such as those covering IT risk management and market conduct. The guidelines name four core principles for AI/ML deployment: Fairness: Design and develop AI/ML with consideration for fairness, equality, and social diversity to prevent discrimination against individuals or groups. Legal and ethical compliance: Ensure AI/ML use aligns with applicable laws, ethical standards, and organizational values and policies. Accountability: Establish clear responsibility—both internally and externally—for AI/ML activities and outcomes. Transparency: Provide adequate disclosure to users about AI/ML use, including explainability of decisions and traceability of activities. AI/ML Best Practices The guidelines prescribe best practices across four stages of the AI/ML lifecycle, as described below.
April 2, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) enforcement has entered a new phase, and the insurance industry is squarely in the regulatory spotlight. The Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) considers insurers “large-scale” processors of sensitive data—including health records, financial information, and biometric data—making the sector a focal point for enforcement action. In August 2025 alone, the PDPC issued administrative fines totaling THB 21.5 million, and fines for individual violations have ranged from THB 50,000 to THB 2 million. The PDPC has also deployed its “Eagle Eye Crawler,” an AI-driven surveillance tool that monitors websites around the clock for data leaks and noncompliant privacy notices. This article highlights the key regulatory developments directly affecting insurers and outlines practical steps toward compliance. What Has Changed: OIC and PDPC Alignment The Office of Insurance Commission (OIC) has synchronized its sector-specific rules with the PDPA through the Notification on Customer Personal Data Protection (No. 2) B.E. 2568 (2025). The combined effect of the PDPC’s general enforcement push and the OIC’s sectoral guidance creates four critical compliance areas for insurers. Consent unbundling. Consent for marketing must be strictly separated from the core insurance contract; bundling marketing consent into the policy application is no longer permissible. Agent and intermediary oversight. Insurance intermediaries are generally classified as data processors, meaning that insurers—as data controllers—must provide specific written instructions and security protocols to all agents and brokers. A 2026 enforcement trend shows controllers being held liable for the “weak security” of their vendors and downstream processors. Enhanced privacy notices. Insurers must provide a summary privacy notice alongside the full policy, plainly stating categories of data, purposes, lawful bases, disclosure recipients, cross-border transfers, retention periods, data subject rights, and easy marketing opt-out channels. DPO registration and ROPA. All organizations involved in “regular or systematic monitoring of data subjects on