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

February 25, 2021

Vietnam Issues New Draft Decree on Personal Data Protection

Subscribe to Updates

On February 9, 2021, Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security (MPS) finally released the full text of the Draft Decree on Personal Data Protection (the “Draft”) for public consultation, after having released an outline in December 2019, with an ambitious goal for the Draft to be promulgated and take effect on December 1, 2021.

The Draft is divided into six chapters and 30 articles, providing comprehensive coverage of personal data protection and some brand-new requirements. Notable contents of the Draft include the following:

  1. Re-categorization of personal data into basic personal data and sensitive personal data;
  2. New data processing requirements, including new legal bases for data processing and disclosure without consent; specification of the forms of consent; regulations for data processing for research and statistical purposes and automated data processing; and time limits for data retention;
  3. New data protection measures, including de-identification/encryption requirements, appointment of data protection officers, data accessibility from government authorities, and registration for processing of sensitive data and cross-border transfer of data;
  4. Establishment of a new Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) under the MPS; and
  5. New administrative sanctions for violations, including fines of up to 5% of the revenues earned from violating activities.

Among the various newly introduced requirements proposed in the Draft, Article 20 (Registration of Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) and Article 21 (Cross-Border Transfer of Personal Data) are notably problematic, and seem infeasible for the operation of various businesses and industries.

Article 20 – Registration of Processing of Sensitive Personal Data 

The Draft’s Article 20 requires that sensitive personal data be registered with the PDPC prior to processing. The scope of sensitive personal data as defined in the Draft ranges from specific types of data such as gender, biometrics, criminal records, and location to very broad concepts such as political and religious views and social relationships.

Among the required contents of the registration application for processing of personal data is an impact assessment report that clearly points out the potential harm to data subjects due to such proposed processing and measures to manage, minimize, or eliminate such harm. The PDPC will process the applications within 20 working days from the date of receipt of a valid application, which means the date that all information and documents provided in the application are acceptable to the officers in charge.

Although the government’s intent is to protect persons and entities covered by the Draft from any improper and harmful processing of their personal data—a laudable goal—this registration requirement potentially creates a huge impact on businesses in terms of time, costs, and administrative procedures. In reality, almost every company, whether local or overseas entity, needs to process its employees’ sensitive data (such as health data, criminal records, etc.) for various legitimate purposes. To be eligible to do so under the Draft, companies will have to prepare and submit applications to the PDPC for approval. Not only will this impose significant costs on companies in terms of time, money, and human resources, but it is highly doubtful that the PDPC would have sufficient resources to process the expected volume of applications within the specified timeline.

Article 21 – Cross-Border Transfer of Personal Data

Similarly, Article 21 of the Draft requires that, before transferring Vietnamese citizens’ personal data out of Vietnam, the following four conditions be fulfilled: (i) consent must be obtained from the data subjects; (ii) the original data must be stored in Vietnam; (iii) the data transferor must have proof that the recipient country has personal data protection at a level equal to or higher than the level specified in the Draft; and (iv) a written approval for transfer must be obtained from the PDPC.

The Draft provides an exemption to the foregoing requirement, when there is (a) consent from the data subject, (b) approval from the PDPC, (c) a commitment from the data processor to protect the data, and (d) a commitment from the data processor to apply measures to protect the data. (It is unclear from the wording of the Draft whether the data transferor needs to meet one or all of these criteria to be eligible for the exemption, but presumably all four must be met.)

In order to obtain a written approval from the PDPC, an application must again include an impact assessment report with an assessment of potential harm and measures to manage, minimize or eliminate such harm. The PDPC has 20 working days from the date of submission to process applications for approval.

It is apparent that these requirements in Article 21 could create a barrier to trade and the flow of data, and increase cost, time, and human resources requirements for companies across many industries. For example, there are a significant number of multinational companies operating in Vietnam that need to regularly process personal data, and they usually process such data in a selected country outside of Vietnam or use cloud services with physical servers located outside of Vietnam. This practice is very common for many industries, including e-commerce, banking, travel, education, health care, etc. If all companies sending personal data overseas have to store data in Vietnam, it would create huge costs and additional work and overhead for them. Moreover, the process for applying for approval from the PDPC would unavoidably delay transactions and data transfers, which usually need to be processed instantly.

The Draft is open for public consultation from February 9 to April 9, 2021, and merits the urgent attention of industries, associations, and businesses to share comments with the MPS in order to develop legislation which is effective as well as feasible for implementation, balancing data subjects’ rights with the smooth operation of business.

As the effective date for this legislation could come later this year, it is also important for companies to get a head start on evaluating data transfers and processing within their own organization, and start formulating plans.

For further information about the Draft, please contact us at [email protected].

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 14, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Insurance Commission (OIC) has issued guidelines clarifying the boundaries between permissible and prohibited activities for unlicensed individuals—including influencers, bloggers, and content creators—when communicating about insurance products on social media. The Good Practice Guidelines for Persons Not Licensed as Insurance Agents or Brokers Regarding the Dissemination of Insurance Content Through Digital Media B.E. 2569 (2026) took effect on July 24, 2026. Activities Requiring a License The guidelines reserve the following activities for licensed agents and brokers: Soliciting or facilitating insurance contracts. Providing personalized advice on product suitability. Recommending policy cancellation to purchase promoted products. Creating links that facilitate contract formation. Receiving performance-based compensation tied to policies or premiums generated. Importantly, boilerplate disclaimers such as “this is not a recommendation to buy insurance” will not shield individuals from liability if the OIC views the content as personalized advice or solicitation. Permitted Activities Unlicensed persons may present general educational content about insurance—such as explaining terminology, sharing industry statistics, reporting news, or sharing personal experiences—provided the content does not target specific individuals to purchase from specific companies. The guidelines also set out best practices for communication, including presenting information in a fair and balanced manner that covers both benefits and limitations, encouraging consumers to read policy terms and consult licensed professionals, verifying information from credible sources before dissemination, and exercising special care when the audience may include vulnerable groups such as persons aged 60 and older. Prohibited Practices Prohibited practices include fear-based marketing, creating artificial urgency, omitting material limitations, making exaggerated claims, falsely claiming professional credentials, using fake engagement mechanisms, and sharing false or misleading content. The guidelines also reinforce the prohibitions under section 83 of the Life Insurance Act B.E. 2535 and section 78 of the Non-Life Insurance Act B.E. 2535 against soliciting insurance contracts with foreign operators
Read More
August 11, 2026
On July 27, 2026, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) released a draft decree proposing amendments to Decree No. 52/2024/ND-CP dated May 15, 2024, on non-cash payments (Decree 52). The draft decree would amend 17 of Decree 52’s 38 articles, with several key changes directly affecting providers of intermediary payment service (IPS). The key proposed changes affecting IPS providers are outlined below. Streamlining IPS Licensing Procedures A central objective of the draft decree is to simplify regulatory procedures for IPS providers. Notably, it would significantly reduce IPS licensing documentation requirements by removing the need to submit enterprise registration certificates, investment registration certificates, and documents evidencing the qualifications of the legal representative and general director. Instead, the SBV would retrieve this information directly from national business registration and other specialized databases, requesting additional documents only where the relevant information cannot be verified electronically or is incomplete. The draft decree also removes the current limit of two rounds for dossier supplementation and shortens processing timelines for several IPS licensing procedures such as issuance, amendment, and reissuance of IPS licenses. The processing time for new IPS license applications would be thereby reduced from 90 to 60 working days. In addition, several continuing IPS business conditions would be removed. For example, IPS providers would no longer be required to maintain certain representations relating to corporate restructuring or the legality of contributed capital. Likewise, the IPS project plan (đề án) would become a one-time application document rather than an ongoing licensing condition. If retained in the final decree, this change could provide IPS providers with significantly greater flexibility to implement post-licensing technology upgrades, system integrations, and corporate restructuring transactions without needing to revisit the originally approved project plan. The draft decree also removes the requirement for the SBV to consult the Ministry of Public
Read More
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