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​ 

February 23, 2026
On February 17, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) released its draft Guidelines on Personal Data Protection in the Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence. The draft guidelines, which translate data controller and data processor compliance obligations under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) into measures tailored to AI development and deployment, are open for public comment until February 25, 2026. At a public hearing session on the draft guidelines held on February 19, the PDPC emphasized that its approach to AI is not to hinder innovation but to develop practical guidance supporting safe deployment while ensuring data protection. Although the guidelines are not legally binding, they indicate the regulator’s expectations and the likely direction of interpretation and enforcement. Scope of Application and Role of Stakeholders The guidelines will apply to all data controllers and data processors in Thailand, and to overseas data controllers and data processors whose data processing falls within the extraterritorial scope of the PDPA. The draft guidelines distinguish the roles of parties involved in AI deployment. Users of AI who determine the purpose of use and designate the input data, and retain outputs generated by the AI, are considered data controllers. In contrast, AI model providers or system integrators that process personal data under the instructions of the data controller are generally regarded as data processors. However, if an AI model provider utilizes user data for its own purposes, such as model fine-tuning or training, it may instead be classified as a data controller. Key Obligations for AI Data Collection and Use The basic principles of data processing under the PDPA must be maintained throughout the AI implementation lifecycle, from design to decommissioning, emphasizing accountability and privacy-by-design principles. The draft guidelines also stipulate the following: Data processing agreements (DPAs) should include model training prohibitions,
Read More
February 10, 2026
Data center and cloud investments are forming a major focus of private-sector investment in Thailand, with tech giants like Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and TikTok, as well as numerous telecom and data center companies, committing significant outlays to data center and cloud development. The country’s Board of Investment (BOI) approved projects worth THB 1.87 trillion in 2025, and THB 746 billion of this was from planned data center investments—by far the largest amount from any single industry. Thailand’s swift rise as a regional data center hub is fueled by surging demand for cloud, AI, and digital services, as well as large-scale investments from global tech firms. The country’s strategic location, competitive power costs, robust fiber infrastructure, expanding IT talent, and supportive government policies—including BOI incentives and streamlined approvals—have made it an attractive destination for scalable and sustainable digital infrastructure investments. The BOI’s proactive approach in updating promoted categories and providing both tax and non-tax incentives further ensures Thailand’s continued growth in this sector. 2025 BOI Changes for Data Centers In the middle of 2025, the BOI responded to the remarkable trend by updating investment‑promotion categories across various sectors (e.g., machinery and electrical equipment, public utilities, digital and innovative industries) to accommodate growing investment in data‑center projects. Before the change, which was detailed in a notification that has applied to investment promotion applications submitted from July 1, 2025, onward, data‑center projects under BOI promotion were granted a single A1 incentive (an eight‑year corporate income‑tax exemption) and subject to one uniform set of conditions. The July 2025 notification restructured promotion for data centers into two categories based on power‑usage efficiency: high‑efficiency data centers and other data centers. Under these rules, qualified high‑efficiency data centers are eligible for an eight‑year corporate income tax (CIT) exemption, while for other data centers this exemption is
Read More
February 4, 2026
On November 18, 2025, Vietnam’s Ministry of Finance released for public consultation a draft decree on administrative sanctions in the field of crypto assets and crypto asset markets (the “Draft Decree”), intended to implement Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP dated September 9, 2025, on the pilot crypto asset market in Vietnam (“Resolution 05”). While Resolution 05 sets out who may participate and under what conditions, the Draft Decree addresses a more practical question for market participants, i.e., what happens if those conditions are not met. In doing so, the Draft Decree offers important insight into how Vietnamese regulators intend to supervise, discipline, and ultimately shape the crypto market during the pilot phase. Regulatory Scope and Overall Sanctions Architecture The Draft Decree applies to both domestic and foreign organizations and individuals engaging in crypto-related activities in Vietnam’s market. Covered entities include: (i) crypto asset issuers; (ii) crypto asset service providers, including trading platforms and market operators; (iii) Vietnamese and foreign investors participating in the pilot market; and (iv) other organizations involved in the offering, issuance, or provision of crypto-related services in Vietnam. The breadth of this scope is deliberate. It appears to reflect a regulatory view that cross-border structures, offshore platforms, and indirect participation may not necessarily insulate market actors from compliance obligations once they operate within the pilot framework. For the crypto industry, this may mark a shift from regulatory ambiguity toward a more explicit articulation of jurisdictional reach. At first glance, the Draft Decree’s monetary penalties appear restrained. The maximum fine per administrative violation is capped at VND 200 million (approx. USD 7,700) for organizations and VND 100 million (approx. USD 3,800) for individuals. However, focusing solely on fine levels risks missing the point. The Draft Decree also places great regulatory weight on supplementary sanctions and corrective measures, including: (i)
Read More
January 30, 2026
Thailand’s Data Privacy Day 2026, hosted by the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC), underscored the country’s commitment to strengthening personal data protection, advancing regulatory maturity, and preparing organizations for the next phase of PDPA enforcement. The event marked a clear shift from policy-level compliance toward “Privacy in Action,” signaling that operational readiness and real-world implementation are now priorities. The Office of the PDPC also emphasized that data protection is now a national economic enabler that supports digital trust, competitiveness, and sustainable growth, not just a compliance obligation. The following insights summarize the key takeaways from the Data Privacy Day 2026 event. PDPA in Real Life: What Happens to Your Data Today The Office of the PDPC provided concrete data on enforcement trends and real-world compliance issues facing organizations across Thailand. Complaints and trends. The Office of the PDPC’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) Center recorded 2,672 PDPA-related complaints as of January 2026, with the highest volumes involving failure to comply with the data minimization principle, collection without lawful basis, and use and disclosure without lawful basis. Administrative penalties. Several administrative penalties have been imposed on data controllers and data processors across various sectors, including government, healthcare, retail, SMEs and e-commerce, ranging from tens of thousands to several million baht. Most violations stemmed from weak security measures, failure to notify data breaches within the required timeline, absence of a data protection officer (DPO) when required, and noncompliance with governance requirements such as the Record of Processing Activities (ROPA) and data processing agreements with data processors. Case studies. The Office of the PDPC highlighted specific examples of violations: Hospitals misused personal data for purposes beyond their intended scope (e.g., using personal data collected for providing medical services to send birthday cards) Vendors compromised systems due to inadequate password
Read More