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 25, 2022

Understanding Vietnam’s Draft Law on E-Transactions

Vietnam’s current Law on E-Transactions was passed in 2005 and has been effective since March 1, 2006. This law is considered a framework law, developed based on the Model Law on E-Commerce of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).

According to the Ministry of Information and Communications (MIC), over the past 17 years, the implementation and application of e-transactions has shown significant evolution in certain areas demanding high levels of international integration, such as banking and e-commerce, but has faced difficulties in other areas due to a lack of detailed guidance. In addition, with the strong growth and breakthrough development of digital technologies such as artificial intelligence, big data, biometrics, and blockchain, and in the context of the ongoing Industrial Revolution 4.0 and the development of digital government, digital economy, and digital society, the 2005 Law on E-Transactions has revealed its shortcomings. Therefore, the government of Vietnam has entrusted the MIC to take the lead in drafting a new Law on E-Transactions, which will replace the old 2005 law in order to meet the country’s development needs.

Accordingly, the MIC published a Draft Law on E-Transactions (“Draft Law”) for public consultation from May 4 to July 4, 2022. The latest accessible version of the Draft Law at the time of writing is Version 4.

The effective date of the Draft Law is still not yet determined, though this law is expected to be submitted to the National Assembly for its review and comments in October 2022 and approval in May 2023.

The following are some key contents of the Draft Law:

1. Scope of Application

Unlike the current law, which explicitly excludes certain areas such as the issuance of certificates of land use rights and marriage certificates from the scope of application, the Draft Law attempts to cover all areas. The MIC’s ambition is to develop a unified law which enables activities in all sectors carried out in traditional ways to be carried out in the digital environment. However, retaining a key principle of the current law, the Draft Law will not interfere with the regulations of substantive laws which stipulate the content, conditions, and forms of transactions in their respective areas.

The Ministry of Justice expressed its concerns about this expansion of coverage to embrace all sectors in an appraisal of the Draft Law. However, according to the MIC, the reason for excluding certain areas in the old law was because the technology was not ready and did not meet the requirements of safety and reliability at that time. Now, technology has advanced, and e-transactions in all sectors are an international trend. Digital signatures have become harder to forge than handwritten signatures; facial recognition by machine is more accurate than facial recognition by humans; execution of transactions electronically saves time, costs, and human resources and at the same time still ensures security, confidentiality, and reliability compared to transaction execution in the traditional way. In addition, the Draft Law adds a section on trust services, which will help previously excluded activities to be carried out electronically while ensuring they meet the necessary legal requirements.

Importantly, this coverage expansion allows all sectors to adopt e-transactions on a voluntary basis. It is up to the relevant substantive law to decide to adopt e-transactions partly or wholly, or not at all.

2. E-Transactions in All Sectors

The Draft Law retains the key principles of the current law, while providing more comprehensive regulations in order to facilitate e-transactions in all sectors, especially sectors in which the relevant substantive laws require certification/notarization when executing transactions in the traditional way, such as those related to housing and land, inheritance, marriage/divorce, etc.

Data Messages:

The Draft Law retains the main content of provisions under the current law on the legal validity of data messages; recognition of data messages being valid as written documents, as original copies, and as evidence; and rules for sending and receiving data messages.

The Draft Law also supplements regulations to recognize the legal validity of data messages as written documents in cases where the respective substantive laws require documents executed in the traditional way to be verified/affirmed (i.e., signed, or signed and sealed), certified, or notarized. In other words, the Draft Law recognizes the legal validity of e-transactions in areas with stricter requirements for transaction execution which require certification or notarization. The Draft Law also provides for conversion from written documents to data messages and vice versa so that parties can use data messages instead of written documents and vice versa where appropriate or allowed by law.

E-Contracts:

The Draft Law continues to recognize the legal validity of e-signatures (see below) and e-contracts, retaining the current law’s rules for signing and performance of e-contracts; rules for sending or receiving data messages in signing and performance of e-contracts; and legal validity of notice in signing and performance of e-contracts. In addition, the Draft Law adds regulations to enable signing and performance of e-contracts through automatic information systems.

3. E- Signatures and Digital Signatures

The Draft Law provides clearly that the use of electronic means to conduct transactions is voluntary, unless otherwise provided for by law. In addition, as in the current law, the Draft Law clearly regulates that parties to transactions are free to agree on the selection of technology to execute the transactions—no specific technology should be mandated in transactions. This important policy has been emphasized in order to facilitate innovation of technology.

An “e-signature” denotes a technology-neutral concept while a “digital signature” is a type of more secure e-signature which uses the specific technology of asymmetric cryptography. Digital signatures have long and commonly been used in Vietnam (and in the world) in e-transactions, and digital signature certification services have also been in operation in Vietnam for many years.

The previous version of the Draft Law was more adherent to technological neutrality, while Version 4 shifts to the predominant use of digital signatures. In particular, Version 4 provides that in cases where a document requires a signature by law, the requirement for a data message is considered fulfilled if that data message is signed with a digital signature as specified in the law; and where the law requires a document to be certified by an organization/agency, that requirement for a data message is considered fulfilled if the data message is signed by the digital signature of that organization/agency.

This specific use of “digital signature” to recognize the legal validity of e-signatures in transactions that need to be signed or to be certified would violate the important policy of technological neutrality; thus, these regulations should be carefully reconsidered.

As in the current law, the Draft Law recognizes the legal validity of foreign e-signatures and foreign e-signature certificates.

4. E-Certificates

Regulations on e-certificates are introduced in the Draft Law, which provides for recognition of their legal validity. An e-certificate is defined as a data message created by an agency, organization, or individual, the information in which is used to serve as the result of administrative procedures, or as a permit, diploma, certification, certificate, valuable paper, written consent, or other confirmation in electronic form. E-certificates can be transferable or non-transferable. The information system to store and process e-certificates must be ensured to meet at least Level 3 of network information security in accordance with the Law on Network Information Security.

Although the current law uses the term “e-certificates,” it denotes a different meaning, referring to the verification of a signing person/organization, similar to the concept of e-signature certificates under the Draft Law.

5. Trust Services

Trust services in e-transactions, including timestamp services, data message certification services, and digital signature services, are supplemented in the Draft Law. Although this is new content compared to the current Law on E-Transactions, timestamp services and digital signature services are not new services, and have been regulated under Decree No. 130/2018/ND-CP. The Draft Law retains and incorporates certain framework regulations of state management of timestamp services and digital signature services regulated in this decree. In particular, the Draft Law provides that these trust services are conditional business services and subject to licensing with a license duration of 10 years.

Data message certification services used to certify data messages in cases where the corresponding substantive law requires documents to be certified. These services include services of certifying the reliability of data messages and services of sending and receiving secure data messages.

In the previously released draft, the MIC additionally included certification of e-transactions and e-contracts in the trust services, and the broader (and technology-neutral) “e-signature certification services” was used instead of “digital signature services.”

The MIC removed the certification of e-transactions and e-contracts from the trust services and also removed provisions on intermediary services in e-transactions and digital credit rating information services from Version 4 because these regulations would create administrative procedures for organizations and businesses which wished to provide those services. After assessing the current situation, the MIC proposed that it was not appropriate at this time to include these services in the Draft Law. However, this appears to conflict with the MIC’s stated ambition to enable e-transactions in all sectors. With no regulations on e-transaction and e-contract certification services, how can transactions and contracts be certified in the digital environment if the respective substantive laws require such certification? Will this matter be left for a sub-law to regulate? Or will the MIC amend the Law on E-Transactions again, after the new law has taken effect?

6. Information Systems Serving E-Transactions

The Draft Law adds a new section on information systems serving e-transactions, which includes information systems for the provision of trust services and information systems for the provision of services for sending and receiving secure data messages. This section regulates information systems serving e-transactions; e-identification accounts; e-transaction accounts; responsibilities of information system owners; responsibilities of state agencies in state management; and measures to protect e-transactions.

E-identification accounts are used to verify the identity of an individual or an organization to perform administrative procedures, e-government services, and other activities in the network environment.

E-transaction accounts are used to conduct e-transactions, store transaction history and ensure the accuracy of the order/process of transactions of the account holder, and as evidence of the transaction history of the parties to e-transactions. E-transaction accounts could be used in carrying out administrative procedures in the network environment, or in other transactions of account holders’ choice.

The responsibilities of information system owners are classified into three groups, based on the number of users served. Owners serving large numbers of users are subject to additional requirements and obligations, such as having to disclose algorithms used to make recommendations and display ads.

The previous version of the Draft Law provided the concepts of digital platforms, digital services, and online transactions, but in Version 4, the more general and inclusive term “information systems serving e-transactions” is used to simplify understanding and to be consistent with definitions in other relevant substantive laws, according to the MIC.

7. Open Data

The Draft Law adds new content regarding the open data of state agencies, which is defined as data that is published/disclosed by a state agency for other parties to freely use, reuse and share, in order to promote e-transactions, digital transformation, and development of the digital economy and digital society.

Organizations and individuals are free to access and use open data without being requested to provide identification; are allowed to freely copy, share, exchange, and use open data or combine open data with other data, and use open data in their commercial or non-commercial products or services; but are not allowed to sell open data which has been exploited in its original state from state agencies to other organizations and individuals.

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
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,
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
August 4, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Vietnam chapter to Fintech 2027, a global guide published by Lexology Panoramic that provides comparative insights into the legal and regulatory frameworks governing fintech businesses across multiple jurisdictions. The Vietnam chapter offers a comprehensive overview of the country’s rapidly evolving fintech landscape, examining both the regulatory environment and practical considerations for businesses operating in or entering the Vietnamese market. Topics covered include: Fintech landscape and initiatives: General innovation climate; government and regulatory support Financial regulation: Regulatory bodies; regulated activities; consumer lending; secondary market loan trading; collective investment schemes; alternative investment funds; peer-to-peer and marketplace lending; crowdfunding; invoice trading; payment services; open banking; robo-advice; insurance products; credit references Cross-border regulation: Passporting; requirement for a local presence Sales and marketing: Restrictions on the promotion and marketing of financial products and services Cryptoassets and tokens: Distributed ledger technology; cryptoassets; token issuance Artificial intelligence: Regulatory framework governing AI systems and AI-enabled financial services Change of control: Notification and consent requirements for regulated businesses Financial crime: Anti-bribery and anti-money laundering procedures; regulatory guidance Data protection and cybersecurity: Data protection obligations; cybersecurity requirements applicable to fintech businesses Outsourcing and cloud computing: Outsourcing of material functions; use of cloud computing in the financial services industry Intellectual property rights: IP protection for software; employee- and contractor-created IP; joint ownership; trade secrets; branding; remedies for infringement Competition: Competition law issues affecting fintech businesses Tax: Incentives for innovation and investment; developments affecting tax and compliance obligations Immigration: Immigration options for recruiting skilled foreign personnel; special measures available through Vietnam’s international financial centers The chapter also examines a number of significant recent developments shaping Vietnam’s fintech sector, including the introduction of the country’s first comprehensive regulatory framework for cryptoassets, the adoption of a dedicated law on artificial intelligence, implementation of the banking regulatory sandbox,