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 5, 2026
Vietnam’s AI regulatory framework has reached an important milestone. While the Law on Artificial Intelligence No. 134/2025/QH15 (AI Law) established the foundation for AI governance, many practical compliance requirements were left to implementing regulations. On April 30, 2026, the government issued Decree No. 142/2026/ND-CP (Decree 142), which took effect on May 1, 2026, and provides the first detailed guidance on the implementation of the AI Law. Although an official list of high-risk AI systems is still pending from the prime minister, Decree 142 provides valuable insight into how Vietnam’s risk-based AI regulatory framework will operate in practice. Risk Classification Framework The AI Law adopts a risk-based approach under which AI systems are classified as high-risk, medium-risk, or low-risk. Decree 142 builds on this framework by providing detailed guidance on how these classifications are determined. High-risk AI systems are determined based on factors such as (i) their potential impact on life, health, property, human rights, public interests, or national security; (ii) the sector in which they are deployed; and (iii) the scale of affected users or integration with critical infrastructure. The latest draft list of high-risk AI systems appears to follow these same principles. Medium-risk AI systems generally include systems that may mislead, influence, or manipulate users, particularly where users may not realize they are interacting with AI or AI-generated content. The focus is therefore on transparency and authenticity risks rather than broader societal or safety concerns. Low-risk AI systems are those that do not meet the criteria for either high-risk or medium-risk classification. Importantly, Decree 142 seeks to avoid over-classification. Certain systems may fall outside the high-risk or medium-risk regimes, including internal-use systems, office-support tools, technical editing applications, certain back-end processing systems, and AI systems used in artistic, gaming, cinematic, or other creative contexts. Providers must also review and
June 5, 2026
On May 11, 2026, Thailand’s Ministry of Social Development and Human Security released a draft Child Protection Act (“CPA”) for public review. The draft CPA would completely repeal and replace the current Child Protection Act B.E. 2546 (2003). This represents the most comprehensive overhaul of Thailand’s child protection framework in over two decades, reflecting the government’s stated objective of modernizing the law to address evolving social challenges—including those arising from digital technology—and to promote greater coordination among government agencies, local authorities, and civil society. The public review period closes on June 9, 2026. Key changes introduced by the draft CPA that could have significant implications for businesses, particularly online platform providers, media companies, and entities operating child-related services in Thailand, are set out below. Expanded Definition of “Child” Under the current CPA, a “child” is defined as a person under the age of 18, excluding those who have attained legal majority through marriage. The draft CPA removes the marriage exception entirely, broadening the scope of the law’s protections to include all individuals under 18 without exception. Replacement of “Abuse” with Broader Concept of “Violence” The current CPA uses the term “abuse/cruelty,” which covers acts causing harm to a child’s liberty, body, or mind; sexual offenses against children; and using children in harmful or immoral activities. The draft CPA replaces this with the broader concept of “violence,” which encompasses any act or omission causing harm to a child’s body, mind, or development; abandonment or neglect; improper exploitation; and sexual abuse. Notably, the new definition adds developmental harm as a recognized category of injury and captures all forms of misconduct regardless of the child’s consent. New Standalone Definition of Sexual Abuse, Including Online Conduct One of the most significant additions in the draft CPA is the introduction of a standalone definition
May 25, 2026
After several years of policy discussion and continued efforts led by the Ministry of Commerce (MOC) to relax the list of reserved businesses under the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (FBA), the reform process has now reached a significant milestone. On May 12, 2026, the Thai cabinet approved in principle two draft subordinate legislative instruments aimed at delisting certain reserved business activities under the FBA and reducing licensing requirements for foreign business operators. These developments signal a renewed and concrete effort by the government to modernize Thailand’s business regulatory framework in order to attract foreign investment and boost Thailand’s competitiveness in the global market. Nine Businesses Set for FBA Delisting Below is a list of the nine businesses that are being targeted for delisting from the FBA’s restrictions. A draft ministerial regulation would delist the first eight reserved businesses, while a royal decree has been drafted to delist the ninth business: Telecommunications services (Type 1 license only, covering operators without their own telecommunications infrastructure), under the supervision of the Office of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission. Treasury center services subject to the Foreign Exchange Control Act B.E. 2485 and under the supervision of the Bank of Thailand. Securities-collateralized lending, pursuant to the laws governing securities and exchange and derivatives regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Agency, dealer, advisory, or fund management services relating to derivatives where the underlying assets fall outside the scope of the Derivatives Act B.E. 2546 (2003) Intra-group shared services, including administrative, human resources, and IT functions Intra-group domestic debt guarantee services Leasing of partial space for installation of financial service machines and automatic vending machines for employee use Petroleum drilling services Trading of agricultural product derivatives through a futures exchange, with physical delivery or receipt of agricultural products at a futures exchange–designated
May 25, 2026
Thailand published new rules on May 1, 2026, establishing clear procedures for how the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) handles digital assets seized during criminal and money laundering investigations. Taking effect the following day, the Regulation of the Anti-Money Laundering Board on the Custody and Management of Seized or Frozen Assets (No. 3) B.E. 2569 applies to digital asset businesses, cryptocurrency holders, and anyone subject to asset seizure under Thailand’s anti-money laundering laws. For the first time, authorities now have a detailed roadmap for transferring seized digital property from private or foreign control into secure state custody. Digital asset businesses holding customer assets under investigation must be prepared to comply with these rules compelling repatriation of such assets in enforcement actions. Expanded Definition of Digital Assets The regulation defines digital assets to include not only those covered by Thailand’s existing digital asset business law but also any other property that can be stored using the same methods as digital assets. This broad formulation means the custody rules will apply to emerging blockchain-based assets and tokenized property that may not yet fall within the statutory definition of a digital asset business, giving authorities flexibility as the technology evolves. Mandatory Transfer to Domestic Custody When digital assets are held with service providers outside Thailand, AMLO will first attempt to transfer them to an account the office maintains with a licensed domestic digital asset business operator. If the domestic operator does not support that particular asset, the office will instead move the assets to its own cold wallet (offline, internet-isolated storage system). If neither option is feasible, the seizing official will report the situation to the Anti-Money Laundering Committee for alternative instructions. A similar hierarchy governs assets held in an accused party’s private wallet or by any third party that is not a