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

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 INSIGHTS​ 

June 26, 2025
Vietnam’s new Personal Data Protection Law (PDPL) was passed by the National Assembly on June 26, 2025, and will enter into force on January 1, 2026. The PDPL introduces several new concepts, exemptions, and obligations in comparison with the current Decree No. 13/2023/ND-CP on personal data protection (PDPD), while other contents remain essentially the same. The relationship between the PDPD and the PDPL has not been clearly addressed; however, it is expected that the government will issue a new decree providing necessary guidance on certain requirements under the PDPL, and the PDPD will remain in effect until it is replaced by this new decree. Some key points of the new PDPL include the following: Personal data will be further defined by lists of basic personal data and sensitive personal data to be issued by the government. The consent-centric approach of the PDPD remains in place, along with additional exemptions for certain data processing activities. The requirements for the data processing impact assessment (DPIA) and transfer impact assessment (TIA) remain unchanged. However, there are new exemptions for the TIA, including for the processing and storing in the cloud of employee data, and when the data subject is the person sending its own data outside of Vietnam. Consent obtained under the PDPD remains valid under the PDPL. DPIAs and TIAs submitted under the PDPD are valid under the PDPL but may need to be updated to be in line with the requirements of the PDPL. Administrative fines depend on the type of violation. The fine for sale and purchase of personal data will be 10 times the revenue from the sale or VND 3 billion (about USD 115,000), whichever is higher. The fine for cross-border transfer violations is 5% of the violator’s revenue of the preceding year or VND 3 billion,
June 25, 2025
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is no longer a distant innovation confined to science fiction and research labs; it has become an integral part of daily business operations worldwide. Employees across industries are adopting GenAI tools at a remarkable pace—including in Southeast Asia, where a tech-savvy workforce and widespread internet and mobile access have driven early adoption. The reality facing organizations today is clear: employees are integrating GenAI into their daily work, often without official approval or clear policies. This phenomenon, often called “Bring Your Own AI,” comes out of a disconnect between organizational governance and employee behavior and reveals the urgent need for proactive AI policies and oversight. For business leaders and legal teams, GenAI is both an opportunity and a challenge. On one hand, these tools can deliver real business value and boost efficiency. On the other, the unsanctioned and unmonitored use of GenAI introduces substantial legal risks, such as data privacy violations, confidentiality breaches, and intellectual property issues. The widespread adoption of GenAI tools by employees, regardless of official organizational stance or guidelines, demonstrates that prohibition is neither practical nor effective. A more strategic approach involves establishing comprehensive governance policies that encourage responsible AI use while managing the risks. Organizations that take the lead in developing GenAI governance policies are better positioned to benefit from its transformative potential. The question isn’t whether GenAI will change how we work, but how quickly organizations can put the right safeguards in place to manage this change successfully. Risks of GenAI Use The use of GenAI in business operations, whether sanctioned or not, exposes organizations to a unique set of risks. The following are particularly relevant: Data security and confidentiality: General GenAI tools in the market may transmit data to external servers, retain conversation histories, and use inputs for model training.
June 19, 2025
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has released draft guidelines establishing principles for managing artificial intelligence (AI) risks in the financial sector. The draft guidelines provide a structured framework for the responsible adoption of AI technologies. Financial service providers will be able to use the guidelines as a reference to appropriately manage their risks in a manner that aligns with internationally recognized best practices. The BOT is accepting public comments on the draft guidelines until June 30, 2025. Scope and Application The draft guidelines apply to all financial service providers, including financial institutions and special financial institutions under the Financial Institution Business Act, as well as payment providers under the Payment Systems Act. These guidelines supplement existing BOT risk management guidelines covering IT risk management, third-party risk management, data governance, and market conduct. The guidelines define AI systems as systems that mimic human intelligence, including machine learning, deep learning, generative AI (such as large language models), and agentic AI. This definition specifically excludes rule-based automation systems like robotic process automation and condition matching. Key Risk Management Principles The guidelines lay out two main principles in managing AI risk. Governance: Financial service providers should define and establish clear roles and responsibilities for their personnel and AI system supervision structures to uphold FEAT (fairness, ethics, accountability, and transparency) principles as follows: Stakeholder roles and responsibilities. Financial service providers should define roles and responsibilities for boards and executives on AI risk oversight. Responsibilities include establishing an AI system usage policy, designating personnel responsible for AI risk management, and building awareness of AI-related risk within the organization. AI system usage policy. The AI system usage policy should be aligned with organizational objectives, regulatory requirements, and FEAT principles. These policies should be reviewed regularly to respond to technological advancements and evolving risk profiles. Risk management
June 19, 2025
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) has announced plans for increased enforcement of the Royal Decree on the Operation of Digital Platform Service Businesses That Are Subject to Prior Notification B.E. 2565 (2022). The ETDA outlined a comprehensive enforcement framework and review process during an online meeting with digital platform service operators on June 11, 2025. The ETDA’s enhanced enforcement approach includes systematic reviews of notification submissions, formal correction orders, and potential criminal penalties for noncompliance. Digital platform operators should immediately assess their current notification status and prepare for increased regulatory scrutiny. Review and Amendment of Previously Submitted Notification Data The ETDA will begin reviewing operation notification forms and annual reports submitted by digital platform service operators to assess each platform’s risk level and develop tailored regulatory obligations. In this comprehensive review process, the ETDA will: Examine the accuracy and completeness of submitted notification data; Request additional information as needed by phone or email; and Issue formal orders as needed requiring operators to correct or complete missing information. Operators who fail to comply with ETDA orders may face suspension of operations, revocation of their notification receipt, and public disclosure of their noncompliant status on the ETDA’s website. The ETDA will conduct follow-up workshops in July 2025 for operators whose data remains unclear or incomplete. Enforcement Framework and Penalties The ETDA outlined a three-tiered enforcement framework with escalating consequences for different types of violations, as follows: Failure to notify before commencing operations: Operators who begin services without proper notification may face criminal penalties under the Electronic Transactions Act, including up to one year of imprisonment, fines of up to THB 100,000 (approx. USD 3,070), or both. Additional consequences include suspension of operations and potential liability for company directors. Failure to correct or comply with official orders: Noncompliance with ETDA correction