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

Subscribe to Updates

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 Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 10, 2025
For companies and individuals doing business in Vietnam, a common question is whether electronic signatures (e-signatures) are legally recognized under Vietnamese law. This matter is governed by Law No. 20/2023/QH15 on Electronic Transactions issued on June 22, 2023 (ETL 2023) and its guiding legal documents such as Decree No. 23/2025/ND-CP dated February 21, 2025, and Circular 06/2024/TT-BTTTT dated July 1, 2024 (Circular 06). Recognition of Validity of E-signatures in Vietnam As a general principle, the ETL 2023 confirms that an e-signature cannot be denied legal validity solely due to its electronic form. The law categorizes e-signatures into three types: Type 1: Specialized e-signatures for organizations Type 2: Public digital signatures for individuals and organizations Type 3: Specialized digital signatures for government agencies Among these types, only secure specialized e-signatures (a secure e-signature of type 1) and digital signatures (type 2) are explicitly granted the same legal validity as handwritten (wet) signatures. This distinction is particularly important in legal disputes and for transactions with government agencies. (For more details, please refer to our previous article.) Domestic e-signatures A domestic organization can choose to use secure specialized e-signatures (type 1) and/or digital signatures (type 2) while a Vietnam-based individual can choose digital signatures (type 2) for their transactions—particularly for those involving government agencies and transactions of high value and complexity which require stronger legal protection. Specialized e-signatures (type 1) can be created by the organizations themselves, and additionally must be “secure” to be explicitly recognized as having the same legal validity as handwritten signatures. For clarity, “secure” specialized e-signatures are those certified (granted a safety certificate) by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MST). (This was formerly the responsibility of the Ministry of Information and Communications, which was merged with MST under Vietnam’s 2025 administrative restructuring.) Digital signatures (type 2) are
Read More
July 9, 2025
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
Read More
July 1, 2025
Now halfway through 2025, Thailand continues to advance in the realm of data privacy, with the ambitious goal of achieving zero data breaches. The Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC), an independent government body established by the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), is taking a more proactive approach, having published several rulings and orders to enhance data protection measures and clarify compliance expectations for businesses. Here is a look back at Thailand’s data privacy developments in the first half of the year. Strengthening Law Enforcement and New Guidance for Compliance Enforcement of existing data protection laws and regulations has taken a step forward this year. Some of the specific initiatives include: Increased enforcement by the PDPC. A key trend to watch from the first half of 2025 is the PDPC’s active enforcement of the PDPA as it intensifies oversight through compliance orders and public warnings against noncompliant organizations while ramping up efforts to prevent and halt the illegal trading of personal data by actively monitoring emerging societal issues. Call center scams and cyber fraud control. Thailand published an amendment to the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes to strengthen measures against technological crimes, particularly targeting call center scams and cyber fraud. Orders from the Expert Committee. Several orders issued by the Expert Committee under the PDPA were announced in the first half of this year. These include directives for data controllers to take corrective actions to comply with the PDPA, as well as initiatives to raise awareness of data privacy within organizations, reflecting the regulator’s focus on promoting organizational awareness and compliance. A guideline report summarizing the Expert Committee’s decisions and orders was also published to serve as a reference for compliance. Public issue monitoring. The PDPC has been taking a more proactive approach
Read More
June 27, 2025
Three American giants are actively protecting their intellectual property rights against generative AI, as two legal battles commence on both sides of the Atlantic. In the UK, Seattle-based media company Getty Images accuses UK-based Stability AI of multiple IP infringements. In the US, The Walt Disney Company and Universal Studios are teaming up against Midjourney, an AI startup, with their main ground being copyright infringement. Both cases are centered around questions legal minds have been posing since the introduction of generative AI: Is the output of generative AI an infringement? And who is ultimately responsible for the output, the platform or the user? Getty Images v. Stability AI Getty initially filed a claim in the High Court in 2023, which resulted in Stability applying for reverse summary judgment on the grounds that Getty had no real prospect of success, arguing that their operations took place outside the UK. However, the High Court judge hearing the case decided that the claims brought by Getty did have a real prospect of succeeding in court. Despite this, Stability saw a small victory when the court ruled that the representative action brought by Getty would not succeed due to the difficulties in identifying who qualified for the class. The proposed class was comprised of 50,000 rightsholders who alleged their rights were also infringed. Stability was successful in arguing that identifying these individuals would be challenging due to the unclear definition of the class. This current trial is centered around four main grounds: Copyright infringement. Getty accuses Stability of using content that Getty owns or has an exclusive license for when training their model, Stable Diffusion, resulting in the generated output containing substantial parts of that content. Getty is also alleging secondary copyright infringement, arguing that Stability is importing an article into the UK
Read More