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

May 29, 2014

Food and Beverage Franchising in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

On February 8, 2014, a few days after the Lunar New Year, Vietnam’s first-ever McDonald’s opened in Ho Chi Minh City’s District 1. Situated on a major transportation axis, but away from tourist areas and the downtown core, the new restaurant boasted 24-hour service and a drive-thru—for both cars and motorbikes—which was also purported to be the first in Vietnam.

Curious customers queued round the clock in snaking lines more commonly seen at amusement parks than chain restaurants, as a flood of teens, families, and professionals awaited their first taste of the famous Big Mac. In just the first 24 hours of business, 22,500 customers were served, according to the Daily Mail. By the end of the first month, a staggering 400,000 people had dined at this single location. Though those numbers may be inflated, they reflect an apparent truth: the Vietnamese market has a great demand for famous worldwide brands.

As of March 2014, there were approximately 120 foreign franchisors registered in Vietnam. The businesses predominantly come from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Singapore, but there is a good mix of nationalities. The dominant business sectors are retail, education, and food service, with food and beverage franchises accounting for 30% of the registered franchises. KFC and Lotteria came to Vietnam over a decade ago and currently have over 140 restaurants and over 170 outlets, respectively, in the country. Pizza Hut arrived in 2007 and now has over 40 restaurants. Meanwhile, newcomers such as Subway, Starbucks, Popeye’s, and Burger King are steadily opening restaurants in Vietnam, and McDonald’s surely has an eye on rapid expansion.

Franchising has become a popular way for foreign food brands to enter the Vietnamese market because it is considered to be the fastest and least risky alternative, one which sidesteps certain regulatory restrictions still imposed on foreign-invested businesses in the food service industry. For example, despite Vietnam’s accession to the WTO in 2007, foreign-invested businesses are not allowed to establish their own restaurants, subject to narrow exceptions (e.g., where a restaurant is established in parallel with the construction of a hotel), though this restriction is to be removed in 2015.

In addition, foreign food and beverage service providers entering Vietnam through a franchising arrangement with a Vietnamese partner do not need to have a legal presence in Vietnam or set up a business entity in Vietnam, and thus can avoid significant capital outlays. However, franchising carries its own set of challenges and hurdles.

Franchising Regulations and Procedures

Despite the market entries of a number of globally recognized food and beverage brands, potential franchisors should understand that franchising is still in an early stage in Vietnam, and the same could be said for Vietnam’s franchising laws. Franchising was first recognized as a form of commercial activity in the Commercial Law of 2005, with the legal groundwork for franchising activities laid out a year later in Decree 35 and Circular 09. There is now a registration system with the government and a comprehensive set of regulations; however, there is still a lack of depth in the regulations, which can leave ambiguities in many areas for those wishing to operate a franchise system in Vietnam.

Franchising law in Vietnam requires that all foreign franchisors register their proposed franchising activities with the Vietnamese authorities before carrying out the activities. The authority responsible for managing franchising is the Ministry of Industry and Trade (MOIT). The MOIT sets out requirements for the application file that foreign franchisors need to submit to register their activities in Vietnam. As part of the application, a foreign franchisor will need to submit a “Franchise Description Document” (FDD), which may contain a considerable amount of commercially sensitive data about the franchisor. Apart from the extensive FDD, the application file must include relevant business certificates, intellectual property certificates, and, in the case of a secondary franchisor, a letter of approval to sub-franchise from the franchisor. The amount of information that the franchisor must prepare may be substantial and the costs incurred to translate and notarize such documents can also be considerable.

Keys to Successful Franchising

As a prerequisite to franchising, foreign franchisors should ensure that their intellectual property rights (trademarks, patents, etc.) are registered in Vietnam. The registration of trademarks should be in the foreign franchisor’s own name as the registrant. Otherwise, if the local franchisee is the registrant, complications may arise if a dispute occurs between the two parties.

Franchisors often want disputes arising under franchise agreements to be resolved by foreign courts or arbitration centers. However, the recognition and enforcement in Vietnam of foreign judgments or awards can be extremely difficult or even impossible to secure. Foreign courts’ judgments are generally unenforceable in Vietnam unless there is a treaty between Vietnam and the relevant country on the recognition of judicial decisions. Thus, franchisors must give close consideration as to the dispute resolution provisions under their franchise agreements.

Finally, franchisors should also be aware that fees and payments arising from the franchise agreement, such as initial franchise fees, royalties, technical assistance fees, training fees, and marketing fees, are subject to Vietnam’s foreign contractor tax regime, which includes value-added tax and corporate income tax. Corporate income tax rates may vary depending on whether there are applicable double tax avoidance treaties. (Vietnam is a party to double tax avoidance treaties with more than 60 other countries, but notably not with the U.S.)

Outlook

The government has made great efforts to set up regulations allowing franchises to be established in Vietnam. This has resulted in a number of global brands entering the market, highlighted by the recent entry of McDonald’s. However, additional guidance will be required as Vietnam’s laws on franchising continue to develop.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 31, 2025
On September 29, 2025, Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC Office) published its Regulations on the Review and Certification of Binding Corporate Rules B.E. 2568 (2025) (the Regulations). The Regulations provide clarity on the PDPC Office’s approach to reviewing and certifying binding corporate rules (BCRs) under Section 29 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), and aim to facilitate international data transfers within a group of undertakings or enterprises (a “corporate group”). In conjunction with this development, the PDPC Office also approved BCRs for two companies operating in Thailand on September 30, 2025. This milestone represents the first concrete progress since the PDPC’s Notification on Criteria for the Protection of Personal Data Sent or Transferred to a Foreign Country pursuant to Section 29 of the PDPA B.E. 2566 (2023) came into effect in March 2024. Some key features of the Regulations are set out below. Categorization of BCRs BCRs are classified into two types: (1) BCRs for Controllers (BCR-C) and (2) BCRs for Processors (BCR-P). The category must be clearly specified when submitting the BCRs to the PDPC Office. Documentation Requirement The applicant must prepare and submit the application (a standard template may be provided by the PDPC Office in the future) along with supporting documents for review and certification in the Thai language. If the supporting documents are in a foreign language, a certified Thai translation should be provided. The translation must be notarized by a notary public or qualified person. Supporting documents may include, among others, a binding instrument such as an intra-group agreement, or a list of entities subject to the BCRs. Expedited Process Requirement Organizations with existing BCR approvals under the EU or UK GDPR, or from countries announced by the PDPC under Section 28, may apply through an
Read More
October 30, 2025
Recent events at a Thai listed company, where a proposal to remove the director was not successful, amid claims that a competitor was attempting to gain control of the company, illustrate how disputes over corporate control can unfold differently at the board level and shareholder level. At the board level, removing directors of a listed company mid-term to gain corporate control is not an easy task under Thai law, as it requires a higher threshold than appointing a new director, which typically only requires a simple majority vote in a listed company. At the shareholder level, Thailand’s tender offer and competition regimes add complexity where different shareholder groups act in concert to remove opposing board representatives or otherwise influence control. In this article, we will explore why the attempted removal of a director may fail, and how the tender offer regime may apply. Key Issues at a Glance Shareholder groups may seek to convene meetings to propose changes to board composition or company authority. Such proposals can be delayed or complicated by regulatory requirements and the need for additional disclosures. Regulatory authorities and minority shareholders may raise concerns when major shareholders coordinate to influence board control, especially if such actions could trigger tender offer or merger control obligations. Companies often respond by seeking further information on shareholder relationships and potential conflicts before proceeding. Why the Director Removal Failed Under Section 76 of the Public Limited Companies Act B.E. 2535 (as amended), the early removal of a director requires two conditions to be satisfied at the same meeting of shareholders: Headcount test: At least 75% of shareholders attending and entitled to vote must vote in favor. If multiple shareholders appoint the same person as proxy, each proxy is counted as a separate head for the purpose of the headcount test,
Read More
October 24, 2025
On October 22, 2025, the Thai government posted a directive not to grant gambling licenses for gambling involving poker nationwide to crack down on illegal gambling activities. The directive was issued by Thailand’s Ministry of Interior to align with government policies to prevent the legalization of all types of gambling businesses, including poker as a sporting activity. This will result in the revocation of poker activities as sport and institute a strict ban on such activities nationwide. Businesses should note the new government’s strict approach toward gambling activities as the legal situation regarding gambling in the country continues to draw close attention.
Read More
October 1, 2025
In September 2025, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) accused a company listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET), including its current and former directors, of concealing material information in connection with its filing registration and draft prospectus. This recent enforcement action demonstrates the serious consequences of making false statements or appearing to conceal material information in IPO filings and ongoing disclosures. In addition to being subject to criminal penalties, such actions can impact the eligibility of directors and executives to serve and may cause lasting reputational damage. Key Legal Risks The Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (as amended) imposes strict liability for making false statements or concealing material information in IPO registration statements and draft prospectuses. In such cases, investors can claim for damages, and there are also criminal penalties, including imprisonment for up to five years and substantial fines, may apply to the company, its directors, and responsible officers. However, misstatements or omissions in IPO filings do not, by themselves, disqualify directors or executives from holding office, whether arising from an SEC accusation or even a final court judgment. In contrast, for ongoing disclosures after listing, such as financial statements, annual reports, and meeting notices, false or misleading statements or concealment of material information can result in not only criminal liability but also immediate disqualification of directors and executives. If the SEC accuses a listed company or its directors or executives of such misstatements or omissions, those directors or executives are immediately disqualified from their positions, even before a final court judgment. Director and Executive Qualifications Directors and executives must meet the SEC’s specified standards of trustworthiness, as set out in the relevant rules. The SEC clearly defines characteristics that are considered to demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness. For ongoing disclosures, being involved in
Read More