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

July 10, 2025

Regulations on E-signatures and Trust Services in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates

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 issued to organizations and individuals by licensed public digital signature certification service providers. Other types of e-signatures could be legally recognized and protected when they meet all the requirements outlined in the ETL 2023.

Foreign e-signatures

Cross-border e-transactions raise the question of how foreign e-signatures are legally recognized and protected under Vietnamese law. While Vietnamese law does not provide explicit guidance, two main pathways for recognition can be inferred:

First, foreign organizations and individuals can obtain e-signature certificates from foreign e-signature certification service providers recognized in Vietnam, provided these providers meet statutory conditions and are duly recognized in Vietnam. However, to date, no foreign e-signature certification service providers have been officially recognized in Vietnam, creating a significant barrier to legal recognition of foreign e-signatures in practice.

Second, it is possible under Vietnamese law for (i) foreign organizations and individuals, and (ii) Vietnamese organizations and individuals whose Vietnamese e-signatures and e-signature certificates are not recognized abroad to apply for recognition of specific foreign e-signatures and e-signature certificates from MST. However, Circular 06 limits eligibility for recognition with regard to “foreign organizations and individuals” under the second pathway to only foreign organizations legally operating in Vietnam and foreign individuals residing in Vietnam. This effectively excludes foreign organizations and individuals without a local presence, who must rely on the first pathway.

Foreign E-signatures Accepted in International Transactions:

Article 27 of the ETL 2023 allows foreign e-signatures to be accepted in international transactions, but it remains ambiguous whether such acceptance equates to legal protection under Vietnamese law, or merely shifts the legal risk to the accepting party.

While foreign e-signatures in this context are not expressly granted the same legal status as handwritten signatures, one could argue that, provided they satisfy all the requirements set out in the ETL 2023, they should not be denied legal validity under the general principles established by the law.

Trust Services

Trust services—including timestamping, data message certification, and public digital signature certification—play a critical role in ensuring the authenticity of involved parties, integrity of data messages, and non-repudiation of e-transactions.

Timestamping services attach time information to data messages, with timestamps generated as digital signatures. Data message certification encompasses services for storing and verifying the integrity of data messages, as well as services of sending and receiving secure data messages. Public digital signature certification refers to certifying digital signatures (type 2) provided by licensed public digital signature certification service providers.

These trust services are regulated businesses and require providers to meet specific licensing criteria under Decree 23.

Outlook

Vietnam’s legal framework appears to offer a more workable approach for domestic e-signature deployment and use, while still presenting practical challenges for cross-border recognition of foreign e-signatures. However, as Vietnam continues to prioritize digital transformation, the digital economy, and digital society, and as the demand for e-transactions and e-signatures grows, these limitations are expected to be addressed in the near future to better support e-government and the digital economy.

In the meantime, the use of e-transactions and e-signatures is inevitable and unstoppable in today’s fast-paced digital era. Parties engaging in international transactions with Vietnamese counterparts should ensure they fully understand the legal requirements for the acceptance of foreign e-signatures, enabling them to fully leverage the benefits of digital transactions in their business operations.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Practices

Antitrust and Competition

Corporate/M&A

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 10, 2026
On July 31, 2026, Thailand’s Big Data Institute (BDI) launched a public consultation on the principles of a proposed new data-sharing law, with comments accepted until August 31, 2026. If enacted, the law would establish Thailand’s first comprehensive framework for government and private-sector data sharing, creating a systematic, secure, and transparent regime to support analytics, policymaking, research, and innovation. Central Data-Sharing Platform The draft law establishes a central system for data sharing, managed by the BDI. Government agencies would be required to connect to the BDI’s Data Integration and Intelligence Platform (also referred to as D2), in accordance with the BDI’s rules and procedures. Five Dimensions of Data Sharing The draft law covers five key types of data sharing between government (G), businesses (B), and consumers (C): G2B: Private organizations may request government data specifically for research and development purposes. The BDI will assess the applicant’s data governance, security, and privacy capabilities whether such measures meet prescribed standards before forwarding the request to the relevant government agency within 90 days. Any dispute may be escalated to a newly established Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for final determination. G2G: Government agencies may request data from other agencies through the central system. The data-holding agency must respond within 90 days, taking legality, necessity, proportionality, public interest, and personal data protection into account. Disputes may be referred to the Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for adjudication. B2G: In emergency situations involving public safety, economic security, or disaster response, the Minister of Digital Economy and Society may require private entities to provide data through the central data-sharing system. Government agencies must specify the data requested, demonstrate its necessity and expected benefits, and request only data reasonably available to the data holder. Requests for personal data must be limited to the minimum amount necessary. B2C: Royal decrees may
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) recently released draft guidance on records of processing activities (ROPA) for personal data controllers and processors under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The draft guidance, which was presented to the public on July 7, 2026, addresses both controller records of collection, use, and disclosure of personal data and processor records of processing activities carried out on behalf of controllers. If implemented, the guidance will significantly expand organizational expectations for ROPA preparation, maintenance, and use across all sectors. Key Takeaways The draft guidance contains several important implications for organizations subject to the PDPA: ROPA reframed as a core accountability tool. The guidance elevates ROPA from an administrative record to a central accountability mechanism, connecting controller duties with recordkeeping obligations. ROPA as a source for privacy notices and governance documents. ROPA should serve as the primary source for privacy notices and align with consent management, retention schedules, DPIAs, incident response plans, and vendor contracts. Expanded scope across all activities. ROPA must cover all processing activities across the organization—including security, finance, HR, and external contractors—with correct controller or processor classification for each. Ongoing maintenance and auditability. ROPA must be updated for any change to systems, purposes, or processors, reviewed at least annually, and maintained with version control and a designated owner. Enhanced vendor, processor, and cross-border transfer requirements. Organizations must document all processors, external recipients, and cross-border transfers, specifying purposes, access scope, and destination countries. Linkage with risk assessment, DPIAs, and LIAs. ROPA should assign risk levels to each activity and identify when data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) or legitimate interests assessments (LIAs) are required, functioning as a risk-management tool. ROPA and data breach readiness. Incomplete ROPA can delay breach response and notification. Organizations should map data flows, vendors,
Read More
August 4, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) could soon see some important changes, as a draft bill to amend the PDPA has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The draft amendment is currently in the public consultation phase, with comments accepted from July 16 to August 15, 2026. If enacted in its current form, the amendment would make three key changes: expanding the government exemption to cover anticorruption operations, introducing a statutory definition of “government agency,” and restructuring the lawful bases for personal data processing to align with international standards. Background The PDPA has encountered several enforcement challenges since its implementation, including three core problems identified by the bill’s sponsors: (1) the current exemptions for government agencies do not cover anticorruption and misconduct-prevention operations; (2) the PDPA lacks a clear statutory definition of “government agency,” causing legal uncertainty as to which entities are covered; and (3) the existing framework for lawful bases of data processing does not align with international standards—particularly the multiple-lawful-bases system in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—making compliance inflexible for both government and private sector entities. Expanded Government Exemption The current PDPA exempts government agencies performing duties related to national security (including fiscal security), public safety, anti-money laundering, forensic science, and cybersecurity. The proposed amendment adds “prevention and suppression of corruption and misconduct” to this list of exempted functions. This would allow anticorruption bodies—most notably the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which is identified as a directly affected party—to collect, use, and disclose personal data without being subject to PDPA requirements when carrying out their duties. New Statutory Definition of “Government Agency” Notably, while the current PDPA use the term “government agency” in several provisions, the term is not comprehensively defined, creating potential uncertainty as to its scope. The draft bill therefore
Read More
August 3, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) released for public comment its draft Notification on Digital Channel Security, which would significantly expand the scope and stringency of Thailand’s existing mobile banking security framework. If finalized in its current form, the draft notification would extend mandatory security requirements to credit card providers and credit providers, cover internet banking in addition to mobile applications, phase out SMS one-time passwords (OTPs) for transaction authentication, and introduce biometric verification requirements for high-value transactions. The public comment period is open through August 24, 2026. Background The BOT’s existing Mobile Banking Security Notification, issued in 2024, sets minimum security standards for financial institutions, specialized financial institutions (SFIs), and e-money providers, significantly reducing “money-draining app” fraud. However, fraudsters have since shifted to nonbank providers and internet banking channels, prompting the BOT to propose broader security requirements. Expanded Scope of Regulated Entities and Channels The existing Mobile Banking Security Notification covers only financial institutions, SFIs, and e-money providers offering mobile banking services. The draft expands coverage in two key areas: entities and channels. On the entity side, it adds credit card providers and credit providers that offer fund transfers to third parties at other financial service providers or that provide cash withdrawal services to individual retail customers. On the channel side, it broadens coverage to include internet banking in addition to mobile banking. Strengthened Customer Authentication The draft introduces enhanced authentication requirements in three areas: Service enrollment and device changes. Providers must implement rigorous identity verification, notify customers of enrollment results through out-of-band communication channels, and adopt risk-mitigation measures such as cooling-off periods and temporary transaction limits. Transaction-level authentication. Providers must use two-factor authentication for fund transfers, cardless ATM withdrawals, and transaction limit increases. Secure authentication factors. Key requirements include the following: “What-you-know” factors must
Read More