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

January 6, 2025

New Decree Provides Guidance on Vietnam’s Telecom Law

On December 24, 2024, the government of Vietnam issued Decree No. 163/2024/ND-CP, providing guidelines for implementing the new Telecommunications Law that took effect on July 1, 2024 (“Decree 163”). This new decree replaces Decree No. 25/2011/ND-CP and its amendments (“Decree 25”) and took effect immediately upon issuance, with regulations on data center services, cloud computing services, and basic telecom services over the internet (“over-the-top” or OTT telecom services) having an official effective date of January 1, 2025.

Decree 163 introduces substantial changes across the telecom sector, covering various aspects including service provision, licensing, standards and technical regulations, quality, passive infrastructure planning, dispute resolution, and more. Hence, it is necessary for enterprises to conduct a compliance review to identify gaps between the new decree and their business models, and take necessary steps to ensure lawful business operations in Vietnam.

Below are some highlights of Decree 163.

Expanded Scope of Services

For basic telecom services, Decree 163 has introduced machine-to-machine (M2M) communication and classified it as a basic telecom service. This establishes a regulatory framework for IoT device communication, previously unregulated in Decree 25.

For value-added telecom services, in light of the new Telecommunications Law, Decree 163 provides more detailed regulations for new telecom services such as data center services, cloud computing services, and OTT telecom services, which were not addressed in Decree 25.

Regulation of Three New Telecom Services

Expanding on the Telecommunications Law’s definitions of data center services, cloud computing services, and OTT telecom services, Decree 163 applies a light-touch management approach to regulate these three new services, as follows:

  • Offshore providers: Cross-border service providers are exempt from signing commercial agreements with licensed local telecom companies. They only need to notify the Vietnam Telecommunications Authority (VNTA) using the prescribed procedures and forms before offering services.
  • Onshore providers: The foreign ownership cap is removed, allowing 100% foreign-owned enterprises in Vietnam. OTT telecom and cloud computing providers must notify the VNTA while data center providers must register with the VNTA before providing services.

Management of Subscriber Information

Decree 163 allows subscribers to register their information online via telecom providers’ applications and strengthens mobile subscriber information management to prevent fraud and ensure accuracy.

Telecom enterprises must comprehensively verify subscriber identities by:

  • Matching identity document details with the National Population Database.
  • Using a one-time authentication code (OTP) sent to a previously registered SIM for registering and activating additional SIMs.
  • Implementing video call verification to collect, verify, and confirm customer identification to ensure the same accuracy as in-person verification.

Outlook

Decree 163 tackles modern challenges, including emerging services, subscriber fraud, and cross-border service provision, offering clearer guidance compared to Decree 25. While the government aims to foster fair competition, efficient infrastructure, and consumer protection, Decree 163 also signals increased regulatory oversight in the telecom sector.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 13, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law) has undergone continuous amendment in recent years, with the latest amendment issued at the end of 2025. Among the amended and supplemented provisions, the regulation that has perhaps attracted the most attention is a provision relating to the use of protected IP objects by artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Specifically, Article 7 of the 2025 IP Law introduces a completely new Clause 5, which reads in full as follows: “Organizations and individuals are permitted to use texts and data relating to intellectual property objects that have been lawfully published, and which the public is allowed to access, for the purposes of scientific research, experimentation, and training of artificial intelligence systems, provided that such use will not unreasonably affect the legitimate rights and interests of the authors and intellectual property rights holders in accordance with this Law. With respect to texts and data that are objects protected by copyright and related rights, the use of the texts and data as set forth herein must also be in accordance with the regulations of the Government.” Analyzing this newly added provision in the context of how it was conceived, as well as the challenges that still lie ahead, can provide some interesting insights. From Aspirations to Flight in Science and Technology From the end of 2024 and throughout 2025—the 50th anniversary of the country’s reunification—Vietnam witnessed numerous sweeping changes in many areas, including legislative development. It could be said that no sessions of the National Assembly have ever adopted as many laws, resolutions, and major policies as this one. The aspirations of the highest-level leadership have been concretized into major law and policy projects, which were drafted, developed, and passed at record speed. All of this was aimed at building a foundation for Vietnam to achieve
March 12, 2026
Thailand’s AI legislative framework took another step forward when the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) issued a notification establishing guidelines for AI-generated advertising that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services. The notification, which is already in effect, was issued under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979) and its amendments, which prohibit advertising that is unfair to consumers or may cause harm to society, including false or exaggerated statements and statements that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services. The notification addresses emerging advertising practices, including the use of images edited using software or AI to attract consumer interest or build credibility. The OCPB noted that such advertising may result in consumers misunderstanding the essential characteristics, condition, or usage of products, which violates consumer rights and causes damage. Key Requirements on AI-Generated or Digitally Manipulated Advertising Content For advertisements using still images or videos created or edited with software programs or AI tools that may cause the depicted product or service to differ from the actual product sold or service provided—which may cause misunderstanding regarding the condition, quality, quantity, or other essential aspects of the products or services—advertisers and business operators must comply with the following requirements: Prior authorization. Obtain approval from relevant regulatory authorities where required by law. Accurate representation. Ensure that the advertised size, quantity, volume, number, or composition matches the actual product or service being sold, whether in still images or videos. Mandatory AI disclosure labels. Display clear disclosures when AI or software is used to create or edit images, such as: “Real image or simulation edited using AI” “Photo from actual location or simulation edited using AI” “Photo from actual product or edited simulation” “Image created by AI” “Video created by AI” Clarity of disclosure. Ensure disclosures are clearly visible,
March 10, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Finance and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have issued regulations broadening the criteria for determining who qualifies as a “major shareholder” of licensed securities and digital asset business operators. Under relevant SEC regulations, major shareholders of a regulated entity must obtain regulatory approval and undergo screening by the SEC. The revised framework introduces both shareholding-based and control-based tests to determine which shareholders require regulatory approval for a wider range of indirect ownership structures and de facto control. The Ministry of Finance notification took effect on February 21, 2026, while the SEC’s clarifying rules took effect on March 4, 2026. These changes aim to enhance transparency around beneficial ownership and strengthen regulatory oversight of entities operating in Thailand’s capital markets. Expanded Definition Under the revised framework, a “major shareholder” now includes persons who directly or indirectly hold more than 10% of the voting rights in a regulated company, as well as persons who exercise control over the regulated company or its shares. This system of two separate tests, based on both shareholding and control, differs from the prior regime, which focused primarily on shareholding thresholds and applied a more limited method for determining indirect shareholdings. The two tests (detailed below) operate independently of each other, and any person identified by either of the tests will be deemed a major shareholder. Shareholding-Based Test Broadens Indirect Ownership Attribution For the shareholding-based test, the SEC recognizes two existing methods for identifying indirect ownership, together with a new proportional attribution method. Any person captured under these methods, which are described below, will be regarded as a major shareholder of the regulated company and must obtain SEC approval as a major shareholder. First, the existing framework continues to apply to both first-tier and chain ownership structures. Approval is required for (1) first-tier
March 6, 2026
Thailand’s Legislation Consideration Committee of the Ministry of Interior has ruled that in-game loot boxes in online games do not constitute gambling under the Gambling Act B.E. 2478 (1935). This first-of-its-kind ruling provides useful guidance for online game operators and digital entertainment companies operating in Thailand. Background The ruling came in response to an inquiry concerning an online role-playing game operator that launched a campaign featuring a loot box mechanism. The mechanism allowed players to purchase a token in exchange for the opportunity to receive a virtual loot box containing randomized in-game items. The key features of this were as follows: The items received were digital, noncash items usable only within the game. The items could not be exchanged, redeemed, or converted into cash with the game operator. Items may differ in rarity but remain purely virtual. The central question was whether paying money to obtain randomized in-game items constituted a risk-based activity involving the chance to receive money or property of monetary value, which would constitute gambling under the Gambling Act. Committee Ruling The committee reached the following conclusions regarding the characteristics of the game’s loot-box mechanism: No cash or monetary equivalent: Players did not receive cash or property that could be exchanged for cash. The in-game items were merely usage rights within the online game ecosystem. No real-world monetary valuation: There was no determination of item value in real currency, and no mechanism for redeeming or converting items into money with the game operator. Any off-platform trading of in-game items between players is irrelevant to online game operators, as any value arising from such transactions is determined by the market rather than by the operators themselves. Service fee characterization: Payments made by players purchasing in-game loot boxes constituted fees for online game services. Accordingly, the committee concluded