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 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
July 27, 2026
A new decree on penalties for violations related to the crypto asset market creates compliance risks for offshore crypto asset exchanges in Vietnam that do not hold, and practically cannot obtain, a Vietnamese license, and for Vietnamese users who continue to transact on those platforms. Decree No. 284/2026/ND-CP (Decree 284), issued by the government of Vietnam on July 16, 2026, formally establishes an administrative penalty framework for violations related to crypto assets and the crypto asset market. The decree takes effect on September 1, 2026, and will remain in force for the duration of the five-year pilot program under Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP, which is scheduled to end in September 2030. Direct Penalties on Vietnamese Users The most immediate commercial risk to offshore platforms is that their Vietnamese users now face direct personal liability for using their exchanges. Vietnamese users who trade crypto assets outside of a Ministry of Finance-licensed service provider face fines of up to VND 50 million (approximately USD 1,900). Vietnamese users trading in crypto assets that are offered or issued to foreign users face higher penalties of up to VND 100 million (approximately USD 3,800). It is expected that Vietnamese users will be more willing to migrate away from offshore platforms now that there is a risk of real enforcement against them. Penalties on Unlicensed Service Providers Violations of providing crypto asset services or advertising crypto-related services without a license face fines of up to VND 200 million (approximately USD 7,700). Operating a crypto asset trading market without proper authorization falls within the same highest penalty bands. Organizations that violate issuance, provision, or disclosure rules may face fines of up to VND 200 million. Although the maximum administrative fine per violation is capped at VND 200 million for organizations and VND 100 million for individuals, these
Read More
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More