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​ 

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
July 20, 2026
On July 16, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a notification in the Government Gazette establishing detailed rules governing data subjects’ right of access under section 30 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The notification will take effect 60 days after publication—mid-September 2026—giving data controllers a limited window to bring their processes into compliance. Scope The notification covers requests to access or obtain copies of personal data and requests for disclosure of the source of data collected without consent. Data subjects may exercise their rights directly or through authorized representatives. Key Requirements Important requirements set by the notification include the following: Required request channels. Controllers must provide at least two request channels: direct submission at the business location and registered mail. Electronic channels are optional but, if offered, may also be used for fulfilling requests. Request contents. Requests must be in writing or in electronic form and include the data subject’s name, the preferred access method, details of the data requested, and the requester’s signature. Controllers may request additional identifying information as needed. Identity and authority verification. Controllers may require official identity documents for verification. Authorized representatives must provide authorization documents and identity documents for both the data subject and the representative. Alternative verification methods (e.g., digital authentication) are permitted if they do not unreasonably obstruct data subjects’ rights. Review and response timelines. Controllers must review requests within 15 days. If the request is incomplete, the controller must notify the requester and allow at least 15 days to correct deficiencies. If not corrected, the request may be treated as abandoned. Once verified, controllers must fulfill requests within 30 days, extendable by another 30 days for large-volume or complex requests with notice to the requester. Methods for providing access or copies. Controllers may fulfill
Read More