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

June 21, 2018

Vietnam Issues New Law on Competition

The National Assembly of Vietnam passed an updated version of the Law on Competition on June 12, 2018. The new law governs merger control and anti-competitive activities in the Vietnam market and will take effect on July 1, 2019, replacing the current Law on Competition of 2004.

One of the notable changes of the new Competition Law is that the Vietnamese competition authorities will have discretion to prohibit competition-restricting agreements and economic concentration on the basis of whether they “have or potentially have the effect of significantly restricting competition in the market,” instead of focusing solely on market share conditions as in the 2004 Competition Law. In addition, the body in charge of competition issues will be the National Competition Commission, a sub-unit of the Ministry of Industry and Trade of Vietnam formed by consolidating the existing Vietnam Competition Council and Vietnam Competition Authority.

Other key changes include the following:

Applicability to Foreign Companies

In addition to business entities and trade associations operating in Vietnam, the new Competition Law has expanded its scope to include “related domestic and foreign organizations, establishments and individuals.” Though this is vaguely defined, the implication is that foreign companies which are related to competition-restricting agreements, economic concentration, or unfair competition, whether or not they have subsidiaries in Vietnam, could be subject to Vietnamese competition law. This has been the view of the Vietnamese competition authorities, in practice, for many years before the issuance of the new law.

New Types of Competition-Restricting Agreements

In addition to the eight types of competition-restricting agreements listed in the 2004 Competition Law (including agreements on price fixing and market sharing), the new Competition Law, under Article 11, adds the following three new categories:

  1. Agreements to not transact with other entities that are not parties to the agreement;
  2. Agreements on restricting consumer markets or the sources of supply of goods and services of other entities that are not parties to the agreement; and
  3. Other agreements restricting or potentially restricting competition.

Agreements under the three categories above will be prohibited if they “have or potentially have the effect of significantly restricting competition in the market.” This condition will be evaluated by the National Competition Commission based on factors such as the market shares of the enterprises participating in the agreements; barriers to market entry or expansion; and the increase in fees or time spent by customers.

Vertical restraints (competition-restricting agreements between two or more enterprises in different phases of the same production, distribution, or supply chain for specific goods or services) are also subject to the “significantly restricting competition” condition.

The new law provides exemptions in certain cases, if the competition-restricting agreements are seen to benefit customers and offer improvements in specified areas, such as increasing Vietnamese companies’ competitiveness in the international market.

Economic Concentration and Impact on M&A Activities

Under the new law, acts of economic concentration of enterprises (defined as mergers, consolidations, acquisitions, joint ventures, and other acts of economic concentration prescribed by law) are prohibited if, again, they are evaluated to “have or potentially have the effect of significantly restricting competition in the Vietnam market.”

The National Competition Commission will evaluate factors such as the combined market share of the participating companies; the level of concentration in the relevant market before and after the economic concentration; competitive advantages gained from the economic concentration; etc. The National Competition Commission is also required to evaluate the positive impact of economic concentration, though there is no further guidance yet on whether this could lead to exemptions.

The law also provides thresholds at which enterprises must notify the National Competition Commission of their economic concentration before implementation. The reporting thresholds are based on the following: (i) total assets in the Vietnamese market of the combining entities; (ii) total revenue in the Vietnamese market of the combining entities; (iii) value of the transaction; and (iv) combined market share of the combining entities in the relevant market. Such conditions will need detailed guidance in subsequent legislation.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 29, 2025
In September 2019, the government of Vietnam issued Decree No. 75/2019/ND-CP on Administrative Sanctions in the Field of Competition (Decree 75) to address the urgent need for clear sanctioning mechanisms following the implementation of the new Law on Competition in July 2019. However, after five years of enforcement, various gaps and inconsistencies have been exposed that hinder its application. These shortcomings have reduced the deterrent effect of the sanctioning regime, and created legal uncertainty for market participants. A recent case involving Duc Giang – Lao Cai Chemicals’ acquisition of another chemical company—one of the first cases of economic concentration violation to be sanctioned by the National Competition Commission (NCC) since the Law on Competition took effect—highlights the practical difficulties under Vietnam’s competition law enforcement regime. In this case, although the transaction exceeded the statutory notification thresholds of economic concentration set out in the law, the parties failed to submit the required notification. This violation resulted in the NCC imposing aggregate fines of VND 1,423,982,880 (approximately USD 54,770) on the companies in September 2024. On appeal, Duc Giang – Lao Cai Chemicals argued that the chairman of the NCC was legally entitled to issue a warning as the key punishment instead of a monetary penalty. However, the chairman rejected the appeal, citing Article 14 of Decree 75, under which the specific penalty and level for “failure to notify economic concentration” is a fine, not a warning. While the chairman of the NCC is generally empowered to impose penalties, a warning cannot be applied if the specific regulation for a particular violation does not provide for it as a sanction. This example shows the inadequacy and inconsistency of the regulations on penalties for violations of competition law, and underscores the need for an amendment of Decree 75 to resolve such conflicts
September 2, 2025
Thailand’s Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) has initiated a sweeping regulatory review of licensed direct sale and direct marketing businesses in Thailand and is in the process of notifying business operators to submit their annual business report and financial statement to the OCPB as part of their postlicensing obligations. This move marks a significant escalation in the government’s efforts to enforce compliance and transparency in the sector, which has faced growing scrutiny in recent years. Key Regulatory Considerations All businesses holding a direct sales or direct marketing license are required to submit their audited financial statement along with their business operation report to the OCPB within 60 days from the end of their fiscal year (extendable for up to 30 days by request, if necessary). The OCPB is currently conducting license audits as part of its enforcement duties. The office aims to complete audits for at least 90% of the 2,983 registered businesses that have obtained their license since 2022. This includes a review of the business conduct of the license holder. New license applications are also under scrutiny. Applicants are currently being subjected to background checks, and the OCPB has signaled a more rigorous vetting process moving forward. Impact of Noncompliance Failure to comply with these reporting obligations may result in escalating enforcement actions, including: Official notice to rectify noncompliance within a specified timeframe. Revocation of business registration, if the operator fails to respond. Revocation of business registration could result in a five-year prohibition on reapplying for a direct sales or direct marketing license following the revocation. The OCPB has already initiated outreach efforts, including SMS and email notifications, and has hosted seminars to raise awareness of these obligations. These measures are part of a broader initiative to enhance transparency and consumer trust in the sector. Businesses operating in the direct selling and
August 21, 2025
On August 19, 2025, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) released its draft Guidelines on the Consideration of Unfair Trade Practices and Conduct Constituting Monopoly, Reducing Competition, or Restricting Competition in Multi-Sided Platform Businesses in the Category of Digital Platforms for the Sale of Goods or Services (E-commerce). A public comment period on the guidelines is open until September 18. The draft provides the first detailed framework for how the TCCT will interpret and enforce the substantive provisions under the Trade Competition Act against digital platforms, which have a unique network effect and require complex competition analysis. This development will profoundly impact the operations of e-commerce platforms, sellers, and associated service providers in Thailand. The guidelines primarily target e-commerce digital platform business operators, which are defined as follows: E-commerce digital platform: A medium facilitating the sale, purchase, or exchange of goods or services, including any operations to create transactions or interactions between business operators via an electronic transaction system, regardless of whether service fees are charged. E-commerce digital platform business operator: A service provider of a digital platform for the sale of goods or services who acts as an intermediary facilitating the sale of goods or services, including any operations to create transactions or interactions through an electronic transaction system by receiving orders for goods or services transacted via an electronic system, whether in the form of an e-marketplace, a social marketplace, or any other form that connects purchase orders for goods or services with business operators through an electronic system. Prohibited Conduct The guidelines classify potentially anticompetitive conduct and unfair trade practices into two categories: price-related and non-price-related conduct. 1. Price-related conduct The TCCT is targeting pricing strategies that can harm competition. Key prohibited behaviors include: Price below cost: Setting prices below the average total cost without
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