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

March 29, 2024

From Decree to Law: Vietnam Indicates Move on Personal Data Protection

Subscribe to Updates

Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security (MPS) is drafting two reports to present to the government in May 2024 to advocate for the development and adoption of a Law on Personal Data Protection. These reports include an assessment of the policy impact of the proposal to develop a personal data protection law, and an assessment of the current state of social relations related to personal data protection.

Decree No. 13/2023/ND-CP on Personal Data Protection (PDPD), adopted in April 2023, became the first comprehensive legal instrument on data protection in Vietnam. When the National Assembly was debating its text and adoption in 2022 and 2023, questions were raised as to the status of this new regulation and the legality to adopt a decree before a law. In accordance with the public announcements made throughout the development of the PDPD assuring that a law would be developed at a later stage, the MPS is now advocating for the development of a Personal Data Protection Law and has drafted the two reports pursuant to the Law on the Promulgation of Legal Documents.

The main arguments advanced by the MPS in the two reports are as follows:

  • As the right to privacy is enshrined in the Constitution, any restrictions thereof must be made through a law and not a decree. The MPS is notably referring to the lawful basis for processing and limited exceptions to consent under the PDPD. This may be a sign that the MPS intends to widen the exceptions to consent under the new law.
  • The definitions of “personal data” and “personal data protection” need to be harmonized to consolidate the regulatory framework. The MPS indicates that there are 69 legal documents directly related to “personal data protection” in Vietnam with more than 10 different definitions, while “personal information” appears in more than 300 legal instruments, although only 7 include a definition.
  • There is a need to harmonize Vietnam’s data protection regime with international practice and regulations on personal data protection to protect the country’s market attractiveness and competition. This argument had been made a number of times by the private sector when consulted on the PDPD.
  • The necessity to adopt sanctions of an adequate level to deter the widespread practice of selling or disclosing personal data without regard for individuals’ privacy in Vietnam is pressing. The MPS reports that in 2019 and 2020, it discovered hundreds of cases of illegal sale of personal data, amounting to nearly 1,300 gigabytes of illegally traded personal data, including sensitive personal data.

In light of the recent news on the first investigation into personal data protection compliance, the message of the MPS is clear: They will be active in continuing to develop a personal data protection legal framework and a privacy culture in Vietnam. The MPS reports also highlight the need to raise the awareness of data subjects and data handlers (companies acting as controller, processor, and third party, but also civil servants and public employees) and to better protect the rights and interests of Vietnamese citizens. The move toward a new Personal Data Protection Law is the next natural step to achieve their aim and perhaps to fix the implementation issues faced by the PDPD.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 6, 2026
Vietnam has introduced an official list of high-risk AI systems, triggering more stringent compliance obligations for developers, suppliers, and deployers operating in the country. On June 30, 2026, the prime minister issued Decision No. 33/2026/QD-TTg (Decision 33), which establishes the List of High-Risk AI Systems under the Law on Artificial Intelligence (AI Law) and Decree No. 142/2026/ND-CP (Decree 142). Decision 33 takes effect on August 15, 2026. Decision 33 is significant because only AI systems included on the list will be subject to the heightened compliance obligations applicable to high-risk AI systems under the AI Law and Decree 142. These include, among others, local presence requirements for foreign providers, mandatory conformity assessment before deployment, comprehensive risk management and data quality documentation, and strict liability for damages even when the provider is fully compliant. Decision 33 also specifies the applicable conformity assessment pathway for each listed system, indicating whether the system must undergo mandatory third-party conformity certification before being placed into use, or whether the provider may self-assess conformity or voluntarily engage a registered or recognized conformity assessment body. Which AI Systems Are Covered? Decision 33 identifies high-risk AI systems across six sectors—the key attributes of which are summarized below. Education: AI systems used for automated assessment, learner ranking, behavioral monitoring, or generating educational content from uncontrolled data sources. Ethnic affairs and religion: AI systems used to automatically score, classify, or rank applications for government ethnic policies; approve or reject regulatory applications; suspend benefits on suspicion of fraud; allocate budgets; or infer and classify individuals by ethnicity or religion for administrative purposes. Healthcare: AI-assisted surgical systems and autonomous AI-powered surgical robots. Banking: AI systems that autonomously conduct electronic banking transactions or make credit approval decisions. Judicial proceedings: Certain large-scale biometric identification systems used in public-interest civil proceedings. Transport: Thirty-one categories
Read More
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
Read More
July 6, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Vietnam chapter to Data Protection & Privacy 2027, a global guide published by Lexology Panoramic that provides comparative insights into data protection and privacy regimes across multiple jurisdictions. The Vietnam chapter offers a comprehensive overview of the country’s data protection framework, addressing both regulatory structure and practical compliance considerations for businesses operating in or engaging with Vietnam. Topics covered include: Law and the regulatory authority: Legislative framework; data protection authority; cooperation with other data protection authorities; breaches of data protection law; judicial review of data protection authority orders Scope: Exempt sectors and institutions; interception of communications and surveillance laws; other laws; personal information formats; extraterritoriality; covered uses of personal information Legitimate processing of personal information: Lawful bases for processing; grounds for legitimate processing; types of personal information Data handling responsibilities of owners of personal information: Transparency; exemptions from transparency obligations; data accuracy; data minimization; data retention; purpose limitation; automated decision-making Security: Security obligations; notification of data breaches; internal controls Accountability: Data protection officer requirements; record-keeping; risk assessment; design of personal information processing systems Registration and notification: Registration requirements; other transparency duties Sharing and cross-border transfers of personal information: Sharing with processors and service providers; restrictions on third-party disclosures; cross-border transfers; further transfers; localization requirements Rights of individuals: Right of access; other statutory rights; compensation Enforcement: Enforcement mechanisms; exemptions, derogations, and restrictions; further exemptions and restrictions Specific data processing: Cookies and similar technologies; electronic communications marketing; targeted advertising; sensitive personal information; profiling; cloud services The chapter concludes with an update on key legal and regulatory developments over the past year and emerging trends in Vietnam’s data protection landscape. The full Vietnam chapter is available as a PDF through the button below. Readers can also gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Data
Read More
July 2, 2026
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) released a new version of the draft Act on Artificial Intelligence on July 2, 2026, for a public hearing period expected to be approximately 30 days. The draft act adopts a risk-based regulatory approach modeled in part on international frameworks—particularly the EU’s AI Act—while incorporating provisions tailored to Thailand’s regulatory landscape and digital economy objectives. If enacted in its current form, the law would introduce extraterritorial obligations, a tiered risk classification system, strict liability for AI-related damages, and new transparency requirements for AI-generated content. Scope and Extraterritorial Application The draft act applies to AI development, deployment, or any other action affecting people in Thailand, even if the action occurs outside the country. Of note: This extraterritorial reach creates compliance obligations for global AI companies whose systems impact Thai residents or consumers, even if the provider has no physical presence in Thailand. Foreign AI providers serving Thai deployers or users must appoint a local coordinator or authorized representative. Depending on the type of AI system, the representative may need full authority to act on behalf of the provider without any limitation of liability. Certain activities are exempt from the draft act’s oversight, including AI used by natural persons solely for personal or household activities, AI for educational research conducted by higher education institutions with ethics committee approval, research and development activities conducted prior to distribution or service provision, and other AI systems prescribed by royal decree. Risk-Based Classification Framework The draft act establishes a tiered risk classification system with three main categories: Prohibited AI. The act outright prohibits AI systems employing cognitive-behavioral manipulation using subliminal techniques, AI systems causing unfair broad-scale discrimination from processing irrelevant data, and other categories of serious risk as determined by announcement of a forthcoming committee that will be responsible
Read More