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

August 25, 2026

Vietnam Issues Cybersecurity and Personal Data Protection Sanctions Decree

Subscribe to Updates

Vietnam has enacted a new decree establishing administrative penalties for violations in the fields of cybersecurity and personal data protection. Decree No. 330/2026/NĐ-CP (Decree 330), issued and effective from August 19, 2026, provides a detailed sanctions framework for noncompliance with the Law on Personal Data Protection (including its implementing regulations under Decree 356/2025/ND-CP) and the Law on Cybersecurity, together with their guiding decrees.

The issuance of Decree 330 signals that the practical grace period previously perceived by many businesses may be drawing to a close, with active regulatory enforcement in these areas expected to commence in earnest.

Scope and Key Provisions

Decree 330 has extraterritorial effect and applies to both onshore and offshore companies. For offshore companies, it applies to those that (1) provide telecommunications, internet, online-content, information-technology, cybersecurity, or cross-border services and (2) are involved in or related to the processing of personal data of Vietnamese citizens and certain other people of Vietnamese origin.

Decree 330’s key provisions cover the following areas:

  • Administrative penalties for violations relating to the protection of national security and public order in cyberspace, including the dissemination of unlawful, false, or unverified information.
  • Sanctions for cyberattacks, unauthorized access, introduction of harmful code or programs, and failure to cooperate with specialized cybersecurity forces.
  • Sanctions for personal data protection violations, such as consent, cross-border data transfers, impact assessments, breach notification, and data-subject rights, among others—with maximum fines of up to 5% of an organization’s preceding-year revenue for cross-border transfer violations, or up to VND 3 billion for other data-protection breaches.

Personal Data Protection Penalties

The key sanctions for personal data protection violations are as follows:

  • Consent violations: Fines of up to VND 70 million (approx. USD 2,642), plus potential additional sanctions and remedial measures including irreversible deletion of personal data collected without consent and confiscation of illegal profits.
  • Data breach notification violations: Fines of up to VND 80 million (approx. USD 3,019), with potential remedial measures including mandatory breach notification and implementation of prevention and remedial measures as directed by the regulator.
  • Data processing impact assessment (DPIA) violations: Fines of up to VND 100 million (approx. USD 3,774), with potential remedial measures including mandatory DPIA submission and suspension of personal data processing until the filing obligation is successfully completed.
  • Cross-border transfer impact assessment (TIA) violations: Fines of up to 5% of preceding-year revenues or up to VND 3 billion (approx. USD 113,208), with potential additional sanctions and remedial measures including mandatory TIA submission and suspension of cross-border personal data transfers until the filing obligation is successfully completed.
  • Data protection officer and department appointment violations: Fines of up to VND 30 million (approx. USD 1,132), with potential remedial measures including mandatory appointment of a qualified person and mandatory issuance of policies and documents relating to personal data protection responsibilities.

Transitional Provisions

Decree 330 includes a transitional clause including a provision that where a cybersecurity or personal data protection violation was committed before Decree 330 took effect but is only discovered, or remains under review or resolution, after that date, the sanctions regime in force at the time of the violation will generally apply. However, where Decree 330 imposes no liability or lighter liability for the same conduct, companies may invoke the more favorable provisions.

Outlook and Recommendations

Decree 330 taking effect immediately upon its issuance is a signal that the regulator intends to commence active enforcement. For context, the Vietnam Competition Commission has recently been very active in enforcing consumer protection regulations against major companies, including privacy-related provisions such as requirements to obtain proper consent for the collection and use of personal data. With Decree 330 now in effect, the Ministry of Public Security (the authority responsible for data protection and cybersecurity) has full power to impose penalties for noncompliance with the Law on Personal Data Protection and the Law on Cybersecurity, notably including requirements relating to data protection impact assessments, cross-border data transfer impact assessments, data localization, data protection officers (DPOs) and forms and mechanisms for obtaining consent.

This is particularly significant given that businesses have had over three years to prepare—from the issuance of Decree No. 13/2023/NĐ-CP on personal data protection, which took effect on July 1, 2023, through to the enactment of the Law on Personal Data Protection effective January 1, 2026. Companies should reassess their compliance status and ensure they are prepared to demonstrate compliance when requested by the relevant authorities.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
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
Read More
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