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

January 10, 2023

Vietnam Issues Guidance on Law on Cinema

The National Assembly of Vietnam promulgated a new Law on Cinema in June 2022 with an effective date of January 1, 2023. To guide the implementation of the new law and the sanctioning of administrative violations thereof, the government of Vietnam issued two related decrees in the final days of 2022.

Cinema Decree

On December 31, 2022, the government issued Decree No. 131/2022/ND-CP elaborating a number of articles of the Cinema Law (“Cinema Decree”), which took effect with the new law on January 1, 2023.

Among the many issues under the Cinema Law guided by the Cinema Decree, one that is critical to over-the-top (OTT) media service providers is the set of conditions for performing the mandatory self-rating of films to be disseminated in cyberspace. According to the Cinema Law, meeting the film self-rating conditions is one of the prerequisites for online dissemination of films. If a film disseminator does not meet these conditions, it would be required to request the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism (MOCST) to perform the rating.

The conditions for online disseminators to self-rate their films have now been set out under Article 12 of the Cinema Decree. Accordingly, these conditions include:

  • Having a film rating council or technical software or a mechanism to rate the films according to Vietnamese regulations on film rating and taking responsibility for the results of film rating.
  • Having a plan to amend and update film rating results at the request of the cinematography authority (for most providers, this is the Cinematography Department under the MOCST).
  • Having an administrative tool to support the rating of films according to each of the rating criteria and to flexibly display the updated rating immediately after the rating is changed.
  • Having a technical plan and process for suspending and removing films at the request of the cinematography authority. Upon a request for removal of the film, the disseminator must proceed to implement the removal functionality available on the administrative tool.

These officially enacted conditions are much more relaxed compared to those proposed in the first draft of the Cinema Decree (released for public consultation in October 2022), which required that a foreign film disseminator (e.g., an OTT service provider), among other conditions, must establish a local enterprise in Vietnam or enter into a business cooperation agreement with a local company to be eligible to perform the self-rating of films. This proposed requirement under the draft Cinema Decree was subject to heated discussions among relevant stakeholders at the time. The government seems to have taken industry opinions into consideration and decided to change the burdensome conditions.

The Cinema Decree also provides the formality requirements for an online film disseminator to request recognition from the MOCST that they meet the self-rating conditions, as well as the procedures for the MOCST to receive and handle the dossier (in Article 12.2 and 12.3).

In addition, the Cinema Decree gives details on the following critical obligations of online film disseminators:

  • To notify the MOCST of the list of films to be disseminated and the self-rating results of the films before disseminating films in cyberspace (Article 13).
  • To implement necessary technical measures for parental control, for display of warnings on inappropriate and age-restricted content, and for receiving and handling platform users’ complaints and reports on violations in relation to content, technical measures, or other violations of law (Article 14).
  • To provide contact points and contact information for receiving and handling requests from the cinematography authority (Article 15.1).
  • To stop disseminating and to remove violating films within 24 hours and other illegal content within 3 to 5 days upon the cinematography authority’s request (Article 15.2).

Cinema Sanction Decree

On December 30, 2022, the government issued Decree No. 128/2022/ND-CP amending Decree 38/2021/ND-CP on penalties for administrative violations in the field of culture and advertising (as previously amended by Decree 129/2021/ND-CP), focusing on the addition of sanctions for new violations in the field of cinematography (“Cinema Sanction Decree”). The Cinema Sanction Decree takes effect on February 15, 2023.

Some of the notable sanctions stipulated by the Cinema Sanction Decree include:

  • A monetary fine of VND 40–60 million (approx. USD 1,700–2,555) and forcible removal of the disseminated film for the act of online film dissemination without rating the film and displaying the rating results (Article 7.2b).
  • A monetary fine of VND 20–40 million (approx. USD 850–1,700) and forcible removal of disseminated films for the failure to notify the MOCST of the list of films to be disseminated and the results of film rating (Article 10.7a).
  • A monetary fine of VND 40–60 million (approx. USD 1,700–2,555) and forcible removal of disseminated films for the failure to provide contact points and contact information for receiving and handling requests from state authorities and feedback, complaints, and denunciations from service users according to the law (Article 10.7b).
  • A monetary fine of VND 60–80 million (approx. USD 2,555–3,400) and forcible removal of disseminated films for the failure to implement technical solutions and coordinate with competent state authorities in removing and preventing infringing films as prescribed by law (Article 10.7c).
  • A monetary fine of VND 80–100 million (approx. USD 3,400–4,260) and forcible removal of disseminated films for the failure to ensure the conditions for self-rating of films (Article 10.7d).
  • A monetary fine of VND 80–100 million (approx. USD 3,400–4,260) and forcible removal of disseminated films for the failure to implement necessary technical measures for parental control and for receiving and handling platform users’ complaints and reports (Article 10.7dd).

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
June 11, 2026
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) has released a revised draft Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) for public hearing from May 12, 2026, to June 15, 2026. This is not merely an amendment to certain provisions of the current ETA, but a comprehensive redrafting of the entire act. The revised draft ETA introduces several significant changes from the current framework, with practical implications for businesses operating in Thailand. Unified Coverage of Public and Private Sectors The current law segregates government transactions into a separate chapter with distinct rules. The draft ETA eliminates this division, defining “transaction” to encompass civil and commercial juristic acts as well as administrative procedures, administrative contracts, and other acts of government agencies. Enhanced E-Signature Definition The definition of “electronic signature” is broadened to expressly include biometric data and refocused on identifying the signatory and demonstrating intent regarding the content of the electronic data. Shift in Burden of Proof When a party challenges the reliability of electronic data created using a “trusted electronic method” or a method prescribed by the ETDA, the burden of proof and the cost of proving unreliability shifts to the challenger. Introduction of New Digital Method Concepts The draft ETA introduces several new digital method concepts that are not currently recognized under the existing ETA framework. These include: Electronic timestamping (e-timestamp) Electronic registered delivery Electronic company seals Electronic stamp duty compliance Electronic identity authentication and verification Electronic transferable records (electronic bills of lading, promissory notes, and similar negotiable instruments) Recognition of Automated Systems and Electronic Contracting The draft ETA expressly recognizes the legal validity and enforceability of contracts formed through automated systems, including contracts concluded entirely between automated systems or between an automated system and a person. A party may not deny the binding effect of such contracts solely because no human review
June 5, 2026
Vietnam’s AI regulatory framework has reached an important milestone. While the Law on Artificial Intelligence No. 134/2025/QH15 (AI Law) established the foundation for AI governance, many practical compliance requirements were left to implementing regulations. On April 30, 2026, the government issued Decree No. 142/2026/ND-CP (Decree 142), which took effect on May 1, 2026, and provides the first detailed guidance on the implementation of the AI Law. Although an official list of high-risk AI systems is still pending from the prime minister, Decree 142 provides valuable insight into how Vietnam’s risk-based AI regulatory framework will operate in practice. Risk Classification Framework The AI Law adopts a risk-based approach under which AI systems are classified as high-risk, medium-risk, or low-risk. Decree 142 builds on this framework by providing detailed guidance on how these classifications are determined. High-risk AI systems are determined based on factors such as (i) their potential impact on life, health, property, human rights, public interests, or national security; (ii) the sector in which they are deployed; and (iii) the scale of affected users or integration with critical infrastructure. The latest draft list of high-risk AI systems appears to follow these same principles. Medium-risk AI systems generally include systems that may mislead, influence, or manipulate users, particularly where users may not realize they are interacting with AI or AI-generated content. The focus is therefore on transparency and authenticity risks rather than broader societal or safety concerns. Low-risk AI systems are those that do not meet the criteria for either high-risk or medium-risk classification. Importantly, Decree 142 seeks to avoid over-classification. Certain systems may fall outside the high-risk or medium-risk regimes, including internal-use systems, office-support tools, technical editing applications, certain back-end processing systems, and AI systems used in artistic, gaming, cinematic, or other creative contexts. Providers must also review and
June 5, 2026
On May 11, 2026, Thailand’s Ministry of Social Development and Human Security released a draft Child Protection Act (“CPA”) for public review. The draft CPA would completely repeal and replace the current Child Protection Act B.E. 2546 (2003). This represents the most comprehensive overhaul of Thailand’s child protection framework in over two decades, reflecting the government’s stated objective of modernizing the law to address evolving social challenges—including those arising from digital technology—and to promote greater coordination among government agencies, local authorities, and civil society. The public review period closes on June 9, 2026. Key changes introduced by the draft CPA that could have significant implications for businesses, particularly online platform providers, media companies, and entities operating child-related services in Thailand, are set out below. Expanded Definition of “Child” Under the current CPA, a “child” is defined as a person under the age of 18, excluding those who have attained legal majority through marriage. The draft CPA removes the marriage exception entirely, broadening the scope of the law’s protections to include all individuals under 18 without exception. Replacement of “Abuse” with Broader Concept of “Violence” The current CPA uses the term “abuse/cruelty,” which covers acts causing harm to a child’s liberty, body, or mind; sexual offenses against children; and using children in harmful or immoral activities. The draft CPA replaces this with the broader concept of “violence,” which encompasses any act or omission causing harm to a child’s body, mind, or development; abandonment or neglect; improper exploitation; and sexual abuse. Notably, the new definition adds developmental harm as a recognized category of injury and captures all forms of misconduct regardless of the child’s consent. New Standalone Definition of Sexual Abuse, Including Online Conduct One of the most significant additions in the draft CPA is the introduction of a standalone definition