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

December 24, 2019

Update on the Implementation of Vietnam’s New Cybersecurity Law and Status of Implementing Decrees

Subscribe to Updates

Vietnam’s new Cybersecurity Law was promulgated on June 12, 2018 and came into effect on January 1, 2019, with a majority of its provisions enforceable from the effective date. However, there are still certain provisions of the law which need to be further guided by implementing regulations and guidelines. There are currently draft guidelines under consideration, including:

  • A decree to implement in detail some provisions of the law, which includes guidance on the important and controversial article 26 on data localization (to guide articles 10.4, 12.5, 23.1, 24.7, 26.4 and 36.5, among others);
  • A decree to regulate in detail the procedures for application of cybersecurity protection measures (to guide article 5.2 of the law); and
  • A decision of the prime minister on promulgation of the list of national security information systems (to guide articles 10.3 and 43.3 of the law)

As of the time of writing this update, none of the three proposed regulations has been promulgated. The draft decree that most concerns industry insiders is the first, which regulates data localization. The draft is now in the Office of the Government for consideration and approval but there has been no official news as to when it will be issued. Although there was some indication earlier in 2019 that the Government was expected to pass the decree by the end of the year, an unofficial source said that it appears to have now been delayed to Q1 of next year, 2020. The latest accessible version of the draft decree is the version dated August 21, 2019.

The Ministry of Public Security’s (MPS’s) process of drafting this decree has demonstrated the ministry’s willingness to be open to industry and public consultation, because the issues surrounding the data localization requirement have generated significant concerns and numerous comments from international organizations and companies. According to reports, up to September 2019, the MPS sent 216 letters to relevant ministries and agencies, both at the central and local levels, as well as organizations and experts for comments. Based on these consultations, the MPS has made some changes. For example, it made changes to the specifications of different types of data that needs to be stored in Vietnam and added more services which will give rise to a data localization requirement. In addition, the MPS reduced the number of conditions that trigger data localization from four to just three (in particular, leaving out the ambiguous condition of letting service users continue to carry out prohibited acts). However, it is still uncertain whether the final version the government will pass will be much different from or improve this version.

It is worth re-emphasizing that the most problematic provision of the Cybersecurity Law is article 26.3, which relates to the requirements of data localization. The article states:

“Domestic and foreign enterprises providing services on telecommunication networks or the internet or value-added services in cyberspace in Vietnam with activities of collecting, exploiting, analyzing, and processing personal information data, data on the relationships of service users, or data generated by service users in Vietnam must store such data in Vietnam for the period prescribed by the government. Foreign enterprises mentioned in this clause must open branches or representative offices in Vietnam.”

The draft decree has narrowed down this broad language. Based on the draft decree, storing data and/or having branches or representative offices in Vietnam is required for foreign service providers only for the protection of national security, social order and safety, social ethics and health of the community, and when there are legal bases for a full determination on the three following factors:

  • Such enterprise provides regulated services:
  • Such enterprise carries out activities of collecting, exploiting [using], analyzing and processing the regulated types of data; and
  • Such enterprise has been warned that the services it provides are used to commit a breach of the laws of Vietnam and it does not take any measures for avoiding, dealing with, fighting against or preventing such breach, or resisted, obstructed, or ignored requests from the relevant authorities.

Regulated services include: telecom services; services of data storage and sharing in cyberspace; supply of national or international domains to service users in Vietnam; e- commerce; online payment; intermediary payment; service of transport connection via cyberspace; social networking and social media; online electronic games; and services of providing, managing or operating other information in cyberspace in the form of a message, phone call, video call, email or online chat.

Regulated types of data include:

  • Data on personal information of service users in Vietnam, including data with information in the form of symbols, writing, numbers, images, sounds or similar forms in order to accurately determine the identity of any one person;
  • Data generated by service users in Vietnam, including account names for use of services, duration of use of services, credit card information, email addresses, IP addresses for the latest login and logout, and registered telephone numbers attached to the account or data relevant to the data on personal information of service users; and
  • Data on the relationships of service users in Vietnam, including friends, and groups with which the users connect or interact.

Relevant authorities include the Department for Cybersecurity and Prevention of High-tech Crime under the Ministry of Public Security and/ or the Cyber Task Force, which comprises the Department for Cybersecurity and Prevention of High-tech Crime under the Ministry of Public Security and the Cyber Operations Command under the Ministry of National Defense.

If an enterprise were required to store data or have a branch or representative office in Vietnam, it would receive an MPS decision requiring it to store data and/or establish a branch or representative office in Vietnam. Within six months from the date of the MPS’s decision, the enterprise must complete the storing of data and/or establishing of a branch or representative office in Vietnam. Compared to the previous draft, this draft has significantly shortened this period from 12 months to six months, which is a disadvantage for enterprises. The period for storing data will start from the date on which the enterprise receives a request for storage of data until such request ends. The period for the storage of data will be at least 12 months. The period for having a branch or representative office in Vietnam will start from the date on which the enterprise receives a request until the enterprise no longer operates in Vietnam or provides regulated services in Vietnam.

How has the Cybersecurity Law affected foreign service providers since it came into effect nearly 12 months ago? Clearly, foreign service providers now face more risks if they do not take steps to restrict sensitive content or respond to takedown requests. According to reports, a senior official at the Ministry of Information and Communications recently commented that foreign companies’ compliance relating to content issues has greatly increased. For example, according to the official, cooperation with takedown requests in some areas related to content has increased from 20-30% to nearly 80-90%. In addition, the official added that it is also expected that the enforcement of the Cybersecurity Law will result in greater compliance among service providers when the authorities request them to provide service users’ identities if a violation of the law is detected.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies
Read More