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

April 8, 2020

New Penalties for Posting Fake News on Social Networks

Subscribe to Updates

On February 3, 2020, the Vietnamese Government issued Decree No. 15/2020/ND-CP stipulating penalties for administrative violations in the fields of postal services, telecommunications, radio frequency, information technology, and electronic transactions (“Decree 15”). Decree 15 will replace the existing decree on penalties in the technology and telecom sectors (Decree No. 174/2013/ND-CP) and will take effect on April 15, 2020.

One of the most notable features provided by Decree 15 is the introduction of specific administrative penalties for users who post or share fake news on social networks, which will be imposed in addition to any civil and/or criminal liabilities related to distortion, slander, defamation and the like.

Penalties for Social Network Users

In particular, Article 101 of Decree 15 sets out the penalties for violations of regulations on the use of social networks. These include administrative fines of between VND 10 million (approx. USD 430) and VND 20 million (approx. USD 860) on social network users who commit the following violations:

  1. Posting or sharing false information (fake news) or untruthful, distorted, or slanderous information that offends the reputation of agencies or organizations or the honor and dignity of individuals;
  2. Posting or sharing information that advocates unsound customs, superstition, obscenity, or depravity which is not in line with the traditions and fine customs of the nation;
  3. Posting or sharing graphic depictions of acts of slashing, killing, accidents, or horror;
  4. Posting or sharing fabricated information that causes panic among the population or incites violence, crime, social evils or gambling, or that serves gambling activities;
  5. Posting or sharing press, literature and art works or publications without the permission of the copyright holder, or works that have not been approved for circulation, or have been banned or revoked;
  6. Advertising, promoting, or sharing information about banned goods and services;
  7. Posting or sharing inaccurate maps of Vietnam;
  8. Posting or sharing links to websites with banned content.

Higher administrative fines of VND 20 million (approx. USD 860) to VND 30 million (approx. USD 1,290) are imposed on the disclosure of information classified as state secrets or personal secrets, but which is not serious enough to face criminal punishment.

Moreover, in all of the above cases, the violators would also be required to remove the fake news or violating content that was posted or shared.

Penalties for Social Network Providers

Correspondingly, Decree 15 also imposes additional penalties on social network providers who fail to prevent fake news from being posted on their social networks.

In particular, Article 100.3 of Decree 15 imposes an administrative fine of VND 50 million (approx. USD 2,130) up to VND 70 million (approx. USD 3,000) on social network providers who fail to block or remove violating information (including fake news) from their platforms, and/or who intentionally provide, store, or transmit the violating content listed in items 1-7 above, or information that is considered not to be in the country’s interest.

Violating social network providers would also be required to remove the fake news or violating content that was posted or shared, and be subject to suspension of their social network license and/or revocation of their social network’s domain name.

Penalties in Other Fields

In addition to the foregoing newly stipulated penalties on fake news, the administrative penalties on various other violations in the fields of postal services, telecommunications, radio frequency, information technology and electronic transactions have also been overhauled. For example, penalties related to data privacy and security have been slightly increased. Notably, penalties on violations related to collecting personal information without consent are increased from VND 10 million (approx. 430) to VND 20 million (approx. USD 860); and penalties on violations related to adopting adequate cybersecurity measures are increased from VND 20 million (approx. USD 860) to VND 50 million (approx. USD 2,150).

For more information on Decree 15, please contact us at [email protected].

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 10, 2025
For companies and individuals doing business in Vietnam, a common question is whether electronic signatures (e-signatures) are legally recognized under Vietnamese law. This matter is governed by Law No. 20/2023/QH15 on Electronic Transactions issued on June 22, 2023 (ETL 2023) and its guiding legal documents such as Decree No. 23/2025/ND-CP dated February 21, 2025, and Circular 06/2024/TT-BTTTT dated July 1, 2024 (Circular 06). Recognition of Validity of E-signatures in Vietnam As a general principle, the ETL 2023 confirms that an e-signature cannot be denied legal validity solely due to its electronic form. The law categorizes e-signatures into three types: Type 1: Specialized e-signatures for organizations Type 2: Public digital signatures for individuals and organizations Type 3: Specialized digital signatures for government agencies Among these types, only secure specialized e-signatures (a secure e-signature of type 1) and digital signatures (type 2) are explicitly granted the same legal validity as handwritten (wet) signatures. This distinction is particularly important in legal disputes and for transactions with government agencies. (For more details, please refer to our previous article.) Domestic e-signatures A domestic organization can choose to use secure specialized e-signatures (type 1) and/or digital signatures (type 2) while a Vietnam-based individual can choose digital signatures (type 2) for their transactions—particularly for those involving government agencies and transactions of high value and complexity which require stronger legal protection. Specialized e-signatures (type 1) can be created by the organizations themselves, and additionally must be “secure” to be explicitly recognized as having the same legal validity as handwritten signatures. For clarity, “secure” specialized e-signatures are those certified (granted a safety certificate) by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MST). (This was formerly the responsibility of the Ministry of Information and Communications, which was merged with MST under Vietnam’s 2025 administrative restructuring.) Digital signatures (type 2) are
Read More
July 9, 2025
On June 16, 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam adopted Law No. 75/2025/QH15 amending and supplementing a number of articles of the 2012 Advertising Law, with an effective date of January 1, 2026. The amended Advertising Law was enacted to further refine the legal framework for advertising activities in the modern era. Online Advertising Under the amended Advertising Law, “online advertising” is defined to encompass not only advertising on electronic newspapers and electronic information pages (as provided under the 2012 Advertising Law) but also advertising on other electronic venues, including social media, online applications, and digital platforms with internet connection. The amended Advertising Law also imposes new requirements for online advertising, including: Identification signs: Advertisements must have clear identifiable signs in numbers, letters, symbols, images, or sounds to distinguish them from non-advertising content. Control features: For advertisements not in fixed areas, there must be easily recognizable features and icons that allow recipients to turn off the advertisement, notify the service provider of violating advertising content, and refuse to view inappropriate advertising content. Linked content: Content in the links embedded in advertisements must comply with the law. Advertising service providers and publishers must have measures to check and monitor the linked content. Advertising on social media: Organizations and enterprises providing social media services must offer users features to distinguish advertising content from other content. Signage for sponsored content: When advertising, users of social media services must use signs to differentiate advertising or sponsored content from other content they provide. In response to the above requirements for online advertising, the amended Advertising Law sets out obligations of advertisers, advertising service providers, advertising publishers, and advertising conveyors in relation to online advertising. Among these, it is notably the responsibility of individuals and organizations engaging in online advertising to prevent and remove violating
Read More
July 1, 2025
Now halfway through 2025, Thailand continues to advance in the realm of data privacy, with the ambitious goal of achieving zero data breaches. The Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC), an independent government body established by the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), is taking a more proactive approach, having published several rulings and orders to enhance data protection measures and clarify compliance expectations for businesses. Here is a look back at Thailand’s data privacy developments in the first half of the year. Strengthening Law Enforcement and New Guidance for Compliance Enforcement of existing data protection laws and regulations has taken a step forward this year. Some of the specific initiatives include: Increased enforcement by the PDPC. A key trend to watch from the first half of 2025 is the PDPC’s active enforcement of the PDPA as it intensifies oversight through compliance orders and public warnings against noncompliant organizations while ramping up efforts to prevent and halt the illegal trading of personal data by actively monitoring emerging societal issues. Call center scams and cyber fraud control. Thailand published an amendment to the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes to strengthen measures against technological crimes, particularly targeting call center scams and cyber fraud. Orders from the Expert Committee. Several orders issued by the Expert Committee under the PDPA were announced in the first half of this year. These include directives for data controllers to take corrective actions to comply with the PDPA, as well as initiatives to raise awareness of data privacy within organizations, reflecting the regulator’s focus on promoting organizational awareness and compliance. A guideline report summarizing the Expert Committee’s decisions and orders was also published to serve as a reference for compliance. Public issue monitoring. The PDPC has been taking a more proactive approach
Read More
June 27, 2025
Three American giants are actively protecting their intellectual property rights against generative AI, as two legal battles commence on both sides of the Atlantic. In the UK, Seattle-based media company Getty Images accuses UK-based Stability AI of multiple IP infringements. In the US, The Walt Disney Company and Universal Studios are teaming up against Midjourney, an AI startup, with their main ground being copyright infringement. Both cases are centered around questions legal minds have been posing since the introduction of generative AI: Is the output of generative AI an infringement? And who is ultimately responsible for the output, the platform or the user? Getty Images v. Stability AI Getty initially filed a claim in the High Court in 2023, which resulted in Stability applying for reverse summary judgment on the grounds that Getty had no real prospect of success, arguing that their operations took place outside the UK. However, the High Court judge hearing the case decided that the claims brought by Getty did have a real prospect of succeeding in court. Despite this, Stability saw a small victory when the court ruled that the representative action brought by Getty would not succeed due to the difficulties in identifying who qualified for the class. The proposed class was comprised of 50,000 rightsholders who alleged their rights were also infringed. Stability was successful in arguing that identifying these individuals would be challenging due to the unclear definition of the class. This current trial is centered around four main grounds: Copyright infringement. Getty accuses Stability of using content that Getty owns or has an exclusive license for when training their model, Stable Diffusion, resulting in the generated output containing substantial parts of that content. Getty is also alleging secondary copyright infringement, arguing that Stability is importing an article into the UK
Read More