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​ 

April 10, 2026
As digital commerce continues to reshape consumer behavior in Thailand, the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) has been taking steps to review and update key regulations for online platforms. The OCPB has had a particular focus on addressing the risks posed by e-marketplace businesses—from misleading product information to fraudulent online transactions. Some of the regulator’s current legislative efforts related to Thailand’s labeling regulations as well as potential changes to the country’s law on direct sales and marketing. Proposed Changes to Consumer Protection Labeling Regulations On February 24, 2026, the OCPB convened a public hearing to review the Notification of the Committee on Labels re: Specification of Goods as Controlled Label Goods B.E. 2565 (2022) and its annex issued under the Consumer Protection Act. The closed-door session, which started the OPCD’s process of seeking feedback on the proposed changes, brought together representatives from government agencies, business operators, and consumer groups. The OCPB explained that its review of the labeling regulations aims to address regulatory gaps arising from evolving commercial practices, particularly the expansion of e-commerce and cross-border transactions. Authorities highlighted recurring issues involving product information that is unclear, incomplete, or potentially misleading in digital sales channels. The proposed revisions are intended to improve consumers’ access to accurate and complete product information, ensure that label disclosures remain relevant amid the growth of e-commerce, and strengthen protections against deceptive or misleading digital advertising. The review is being undertaken pursuant to the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979). As part of the initiative, the OCPB signaled a potential update to the categories of “controlled label products” as well as enhanced disclosure obligations for business operators, with the broader aim of promoting greater transparency, reinforcing operator accountability, and aligning Thailand’s labeling framework with current market conditions. The OCPB secretary general emphasized that
Read More
April 9, 2026
As part of its ongoing public consultation process for the development of new practical guidelines under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) held a two‑day public hearing on April 1–2, 2026. The hearing followed an online questionnaire and stakeholder engagement activities conducted in March 2026 and reflects the PDPC’s continued efforts to develop guidance that aligns international regulatory standards with Thai operational realities. The public hearing provided a forum for participants from both the public and private sectors to exchange views with the PDPC on the proposed guidance so that it responds to the needs of the business community while supporting effective and balanced enforcement of the PDPA. The PDPC emphasized that the consultation process is part of a wider policy objective to build trust in the convenient, secure, and internationally aligned exchange of data. Structure of the Consultation Process According to the PDPC, the initiative to develop the draft PDPA guidelines is being implemented through three core phases: Review of international best practices. The PDPC has conducted a comparative review of data protection guidance and regulatory approaches in jurisdictions with internationally recognized standards, including Singapore, the United Kingdom, the European Union (EU), and Japan. These materials are intended to serve as a reference point for developing practical recommendations across key subject areas under the PDPA. Identification of practical issues and challenges. To ensure that the guidelines respond to real‑world compliance challenges in Thailand, the PDPC has gathered views from a broad range of stakeholders across the public sector, the private sector, and the general public. This phase included focus group discussions and questionnaires aimed at identifying areas to provide organizations with greater clarity and consistency on regulatory expectations. Preparation of draft guidelines. Insights from the comparative study and stakeholder
Read More
April 3, 2026
On March 16, 2026, Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security released a draft version of a new Decree on the Prevention and Combating of Cybercrime and High-Tech Crime to replace the currently effective Decree 25/2014/ND-CP. In the draft, the ministry has proposed a comprehensive regulatory framework aimed at addressing violations occurring within the cybersecurity domain, including measures related to intellectual property. Acts of Online IP Infringement Article 9 of the draft decree notably introduces specific provisions addressing online intellectual property infringement, with detailed lists of acts considered to constitute infringement in the online environment. Copyright and related rights infringement includes: Uploading or sharing works, performances, sound recordings, video recordings, broadcasts, computer programs, software, research, documents, theses, or other intellectual creations on digital platforms without the consent of the rights holder. Unauthorized livestreaming of copyrighted television programs, sporting events, or artistic performances. Uploading, sharing, storing, transmitting, or providing links to infringing works or digital content via websites, social networks, applications, or digital platforms. Providing or using software, tools, devices, or access codes to circumvent technological protection measures or evade lawful control mechanisms implemented by rights holders. Using artificial intelligence (AI) tools to replicate the ideas or structure of another person’s work without significant new creativity or without proper attribution, thereby causing damage to the original author. Industrial property infringement includes: Manufacturing, trading, advertising, or distributing counterfeit goods bearing counterfeit trademarks, geographical indications, or industrial designs, as well as goods infringing industrial property rights through online platforms. Unauthorized registration, appropriation, or use of domain names, account names, or digital identifiers that create confusion regarding the rights holder or the origin of goods or services. Producing, using, or offering for sale products containing all or part of a patented invention via online platforms. Advertising or introducing products with technical features or characteristics identical
Read More
April 3, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has established a comprehensive governance framework for the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) in the capital markets. The framework provides guidance to capital market business operators on understanding the risks associated with AI/ML implementation and adopting appropriate practices to build public confidence in Thailand’s capital markets. While the guidelines are principle-based rather than prescriptive, they reflect the SEC’s expectations for responsible AI/ML governance and are likely to inform supervisory activities and industry standards going forward. Scope The framework applies to capital market business operators supervised by the SEC. This includes, for example, securities and derivatives firms, asset management companies, mutual fund and private fund managers, investment advisors and investment consultants (including robo-advisory service providers), derivatives intermediaries, and other licensed intermediaries and market operators in the Thai capital markets that deploy AI/ML in their operations. Core Principles of the Guidelines The framework is presented as a best-practice manual rather than prescriptive regulation, providing guidance that regulated entities may apply to their AI/ML governance and risk management as appropriate. While currently nonbinding, the guidelines signal the SEC’s expectations for the sector, particularly in relation to other binding SEC regulations such as those covering IT risk management and market conduct. The guidelines name four core principles for AI/ML deployment: Fairness: Design and develop AI/ML with consideration for fairness, equality, and social diversity to prevent discrimination against individuals or groups. Legal and ethical compliance: Ensure AI/ML use aligns with applicable laws, ethical standards, and organizational values and policies. Accountability: Establish clear responsibility—both internally and externally—for AI/ML activities and outcomes. Transparency: Provide adequate disclosure to users about AI/ML use, including explainability of decisions and traceability of activities. AI/ML Best Practices The guidelines prescribe best practices across four stages of the AI/ML lifecycle, as described below.
Read More