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 9, 2025

Vietnam Amends Key Aspects of Advertising Law

Subscribe to Updates

On June 16, 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam adopted Law No. 75/2025/QH15 amending and supplementing a number of articles of the 2012 Advertising Law, with an effective date of January 1, 2026. The amended Advertising Law was enacted to further refine the legal framework for advertising activities in the modern era.

Online Advertising

Under the amended Advertising Law, “online advertising” is defined to encompass not only advertising on electronic newspapers and electronic information pages (as provided under the 2012 Advertising Law) but also advertising on other electronic venues, including social media, online applications, and digital platforms with internet connection.

The amended Advertising Law also imposes new requirements for online advertising, including:

  • Identification signs: Advertisements must have clear identifiable signs in numbers, letters, symbols, images, or sounds to distinguish them from non-advertising content.
  • Control features: For advertisements not in fixed areas, there must be easily recognizable features and icons that allow recipients to turn off the advertisement, notify the service provider of violating advertising content, and refuse to view inappropriate advertising content.
  • Linked content: Content in the links embedded in advertisements must comply with the law. Advertising service providers and publishers must have measures to check and monitor the linked content.
  • Advertising on social media: Organizations and enterprises providing social media services must offer users features to distinguish advertising content from other content.
  • Signage for sponsored content: When advertising, users of social media services must use signs to differentiate advertising or sponsored content from other content they provide.

In response to the above requirements for online advertising, the amended Advertising Law sets out obligations of advertisers, advertising service providers, advertising publishers, and advertising conveyors in relation to online advertising. Among these, it is notably the responsibility of individuals and organizations engaging in online advertising to prevent and remove violating advertisements within 24 hours upon receiving requests from authorities.

Responsibilities of Advertising Conveyors

The amended Advertising Law introduces the legal framework for management of advertising activities by advertising conveyors—generally defined as persons who, for profit-making purposes, directly advertise, recommend, or endorse products, goods, or services, either online or in person—by specifying their rights and obligations.

In terms of rights, advertising conveyors are entitled to receive truthful, complete, and accurate information about the organizations, individuals, and products being advertised, as well as any relevant documentation related to advertising conditions. In terms of obligations, advertising conveyors must comply with certain obligations, critically including taking legal liability if the advertisements do not meet the required legal standards.

Notably, advertising conveyors who are influencers (such as key opinion leaders (KOLs) or key opinion consumers (KOCs)) are subject to stricter obligations, such as verifying advertisers’ credibility, refraining from promoting products or services they have not personally used or clearly understood, and expressly disclosing advertisements before and during promotional activities.

Advertising Content

The amended Advertising Law introduces for the first time examples of content that will not be considered “advertising content,” which generally includes:

  • Documents, information, and images describing products, goods, and services as well as products and goods provided by manufacturers and traders for the purpose of conducting promotional activities, displaying and introducing goods and services, and participating in trade fairs and exhibitions.
  • Content that is required to be displayed on product labels and packaging in accordance with the law on goods labeling, excluding functional foods and foods for special dietary use.
  • Content that must be publicly disclosed and provided to customers and consumers.
  • Content that relates to information, education, and communication regarding prevention and control of goods’ harmful effects.
  • Other content for which the provision of information is a legal obligation or responsibility under relevant laws.

Criminal Liability of Advertising Violations

The crime of untruthful advertising was introduced in the 2015 Penal Code (as amended in 2017). The highlighting of criminal liability in the amended Advertising Law will help to amplify the serious consequences of violation of the advertising laws. Accordingly, it is expected that the authorities will pursue more serious enforcement actions against violators in the future.

Other Changes

In addition to the above key amendments, the amended Advertising Law also amends and supplements provisions in relation to, among others, advertising of regulated or special products, goods, and services; advertising on print and broadcast media; and outdoor and out-of-home advertising.

Related Professionals

Industries

Consumer Products

Technology

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Regulatory Affairs

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More