On September 15, 2025, Vietnam’s Ministry of Science and Technology announced that the country will issue an updated version of its National AI Strategy (first issued in 2021) and its first-ever AI Law by the end of this year. The ministry emphasized that the AI strategy is not just a legal framework, but a commitment to embracing AI to drive Vietnam into a new era. The AI adoption plan is set as a priority of the country, and marks a significant step in shaping Vietnam’s AI governance and innovation landscape. Highlights of the plan include the following: Strategic vision. Vietnam’s ambition is to leverage AI for economic growth, social development, and global competitiveness, under the guiding principle “AI for humans – safe, autonomous, cooperative, inclusive, and sustainable.” AI as national infrastructure. The updated strategy positions AI as core national infrastructure, comparable to electricity or the internet, aiming to provide every citizen with a “personal digital assistant.” Core principles for AI legislation. The AI Law will be built around the following six core principles: Risk-based regulation Transparency and accountability Human-centric development Domestic AI autonomy AI as a driver of sustainable growth Digital sovereignty, with data, infrastructure, and AI technology being three strategic pillars Ethics and openness. A National AI Ethics Code will accompany the upcoming law, aligned with international standards but tailored to the Vietnamese context. The government emphasizes open standards and open-source development. Market development and incentives. The government plans to expand domestic AI adoption, particularly in public services and key industries. The National Technology Innovation Fund (NATIF) will allocate at least 40% of its budget to AI projects, prioritizing SMEs through vouchers for locally developed AI solutions. Background on AI Law Development Regulations on AI are found in various Vietnamese laws and regulations, notably the recently adopted Law

M&A specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins have contributed the Vietnam chapter to Private M&A 2025, a newly released guide from Lexology Panoramic. The publication provides practical insights into private mergers and acquisitions frameworks in jurisdictions worldwide. The Vietnam chapter addresses key aspects of private M&A transactions, including: Structure and process, legal regulation, and required consents Advisers, negotiation, and documentation Due diligence and disclosure obligations Pricing, consideration, and financing Conditions, preclosing covenants, and termination rights Representations, warranties, indemnities, and postclosing covenants Taxation of transfers Employees, pensions, and benefits Recent legal, regulatory, and market practice developments The chapter highlights how Vietnam’s legal framework governs private acquisitions and disposals, outlines typical transaction processes and structures, and provides guidance on common regulatory and practical considerations. It also notes recent trends, including increased scrutiny of merger control filings by the Vietnam Competition Commission and regulatory changes affecting M&A approvals. The full Vietnam chapter is available as a PDF through the button below. Readers can also gain 30 days of complimentary access to Private M&A 2025 and Lexology Panoramic’s full library of resources through this link.

On September 10, 2025, Vietnam’s National Credit Information Center (CIC) reported to the Vietnam Cybersecurity Emergency Response Team (VNCERT) a suspected significant cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized access to the CIC’s credit information database. A hacker group has claimed responsibility and allegedly posted over 160 million records for sale, including sensitive personal and financial data. Implications for Banks and Financial Institutions Companies that share customers’ or potential customers’ personal data with the CIC for credit scoring or other purposes—and continue to act as a data controller for such data—may be obligated under Vietnam’s Personal Data Protection Decree (PDPD) and related regulations to: Notify A05 (Department of Cybersecurity and High-Tech Crime Prevention) and the State Bank of Vietnam without delay. Inform affected individuals if their personal data is at risk. Recommended Actions Companies that could be impacted by this data breach should take the following actions: Conduct an internal review of CIC-related data in their systems, and identify whether and how the systems have been affected by this incident. Assess whether to notify regulators and customers/potential customers. Enhance cybersecurity controls, monitor for suspicious activity, and implement additional safeguards to prevent secondary breaches.

On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as