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

July 23, 2021

Vietnam: New Decree Tightens Regulations on Cross-Border Online Advertising

Subscribe to Updates

To enforce more rigorous control of cross-border advertising activities, the Vietnamese government issued Decree No. 70/2021/ND-CP dated July 20, 2021 (Decree 70), amending and supplementing provisions of Decree No. 181/2013/ND-CP dated November 14, 2013, elaborating on some articles of the Law on Advertising. Decree 70 will take effect on September 15, 2021.

According to the Deputy Director of the Authority of Broadcasting and Electronic Information, Decree 70 will allow better control over cross-border advertisement on platforms such as Facebook or YouTube. To that end, Decree 70 stipulates new obligations for these providers while also consolidating executive authority over cross-border advertising activities under the Ministry of Information and Communications (MIC).

Revised Obligations for Cross-Border Advertising Services

Significantly, Decree 70 overhauls Article 13, which provides the definitions and obligations for cross-border advertising service providers. Accordingly, cross-border advertising services are explained as the utilization of websites hosted outside Vietnam to provide ads targeted at Vietnamese consumers and obtain revenue in Vietnam. Notably, Article 13 defines such websites as a “single or multi-website system …  providing users with services for storage, provision, use, search, or exchange of information, sound or image sharing, forum creation, or live chat to supply advertising services.” This would effectively encompass many types of online environments, specifically social network sites, such as Facebook.

In addition, more entities will be taxed on cross-border advertising revenue under Article 13, including not only service providers but also both domestic and overseas advertisers.

Under Decree 70, cross-border advertising services must comply with Vietnam’s cybersecurity and intellectual property laws in addition to the Law on Advertising. Decree 70 requires foreign providers of cross-border advertising services to supply the MIC with direct contact information 15 days before commencing cross-border advertising activities in Vietnam. Domestic advertising service providers that cooperate with foreign entities to provide cross-border advertising services in Vietnam must submit annual or ad hoc reports in a prescribed form as stipulated under the decree.

Service providers must also block and remove illegal or infringing content from their advertising platforms upon the MIC’s request, as well as supply information on organizations or individuals suspected of illegal online advertising activities.

Decree 70 also grants advertisers the right to demand that service providers not place advertising products in content that violates the law (particularly Article 8.1 of Cybersecurity Law and Article 28 of IP Law) and supply means for monitoring and removing illegal advertising content.

MIC’s Control over Cross-Border Advertising Services

In the past, cross-border advertising services were under the supervision and management of different authorities. Decree 70 revises this and consolidates all supervisory authority under the MIC. Departments and agencies of all levels must vigilantly detect illegal cross-border advertising activities and report to the MIC. Within a five-day window, the MIC will conduct investigations and notify service providers of the illegal ad content or activities that must be addressed or removed in 24 hours. If service providers fail to adhere to the MIC’s request, the MIC will take any appropriate legal measures to block the illegal advertisement. This authority is also extended to other competent agencies should the offense threaten Vietnam’s national security. It is unclear what the blocking measures would entail under Decree 70, and it will be interesting to see how this mechanism works in the future.

Related Professionals

Industries

Consumer Products

Technology

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Intellectual Property

Regulatory Affairs

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 9, 2026
Over the past several years, numerous automobile manufacturers have brought electric vehicles (EVs) to the market and received positive feedback from consumers in Thailand and around the world. EVs have gained popularity due to their lower maintenance costs, reduced energy expenses, and environmental benefits. However, reports have emerged of EVs causing problems such as battery fires, autopilot malfunctions leading to accidents, and safety systems such as brakes engaging automatically under inappropriate conditions. Even when these situations do not cause injury to drivers or passengers, they raise significant concerns for EV manufacturers, importers, and sellers operating in Thailand. These problems may seriously impact businesses if the products are identified as unsafe under Thailand’s Product Liability Act (PLA), officially known as the Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act. Under this law, authorities or courts can order business operators to recall products from the market or prohibit their export, import, or sale. To manage and mitigate the risk of being found liable for damages due to an unsafe product under the PLA, EV business operators should be aware of the scope of the law. Potentially Liable Parties The PLA identifies several types of entrepreneurs and business operators—both individuals and entities—as “potentially liable parties” (PLPs) who may be held liable under the law. In the EV context, this could include vehicle manufacturers, battery suppliers, software developers whose systems are integrated into the vehicle, and local importers or distributors. Specifically, the PLA covers: Manufacturers or hirers Importers Sellers of goods for which the manufacturer, hirer, or importer cannot be identified Any other party who uses the name, trade name, trademark, or statements associated with the alleged unsafe products, or acts in a manner that causes them to be perceived as a manufacturer, hirer, or importer Definition of “Product” and “Unsafe Product” The
Read More
March 6, 2026
Thailand’s Legislation Consideration Committee of the Ministry of Interior has ruled that in-game loot boxes in online games do not constitute gambling under the Gambling Act B.E. 2478 (1935). This first-of-its-kind ruling provides useful guidance for online game operators and digital entertainment companies operating in Thailand. Background The ruling came in response to an inquiry concerning an online role-playing game operator that launched a campaign featuring a loot box mechanism. The mechanism allowed players to purchase a token in exchange for the opportunity to receive a virtual loot box containing randomized in-game items. The key features of this were as follows: The items received were digital, noncash items usable only within the game. The items could not be exchanged, redeemed, or converted into cash with the game operator. Items may differ in rarity but remain purely virtual. The central question was whether paying money to obtain randomized in-game items constituted a risk-based activity involving the chance to receive money or property of monetary value, which would constitute gambling under the Gambling Act. Committee Ruling The committee reached the following conclusions regarding the characteristics of the game’s loot-box mechanism: No cash or monetary equivalent: Players did not receive cash or property that could be exchanged for cash. The in-game items were merely usage rights within the online game ecosystem. No real-world monetary valuation: There was no determination of item value in real currency, and no mechanism for redeeming or converting items into money with the game operator. Any off-platform trading of in-game items between players is irrelevant to online game operators, as any value arising from such transactions is determined by the market rather than by the operators themselves. Service fee characterization: Payments made by players purchasing in-game loot boxes constituted fees for online game services. Accordingly, the committee concluded
Read More
March 5, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed a criminal complaint against a licensed digital asset broker, its overseas trading platform, and its executives for allegedly operating an unlicensed digital asset exchange targeting Thai customers. The case marks an escalation in the SEC’s enforcement efforts against unlicensed offshore platforms that attempt to serve Thai users through local licensed entities. Criminal Complaint On February 20, 2026, the SEC filed a criminal complaint with the Economic Crime Suppression Division against a local licensed digital asset broker, its overseas global trading platform, and its executives. The SEC alleges that the parties violated the Digital Asset Business Emergency Decree B.E. 2561 (2018) by cooperatively operating a digital asset exchange business on a cross-border basis since 2023 without the required SEC license. According to the SEC, the local broker promoted the overseas platform’s services to the public through Thai-language posts on social media channels, with services available exclusively to customers residing in Thailand. Access to the global platform was provided through the local broker’s website and mobile application. Customers who registered for the local broker’s services were automatically granted access to the global platform without having to undergo a separate identity verification process. The SEC also found that the local broker provided back-office system support services to the global platform. The SEC considers these activities to constitute joint operation of an unlicensed digital asset exchange. The former executives of the local broker are being held liable as the responsible persons during the relevant period. The SEC emphasized that the complaint initiates the criminal process, and the decision to prosecute or convict the accused parties will ultimately be made by law enforcement authorities and the criminal courts. Platform Blocking The SEC has also coordinated with the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society to block public
Read More
February 27, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has officially implemented a new regulatory framework supervising systemically important retail payment systems (SIRPS), effective February 21, 2026, with PromptPay being the first payment system designated as a SIRPS. Under this new set of regulations, the BOT may designate payment systems under the Payment Systems Act B.E. 2560 (2017) as SIRPSs based on quantitative and qualitative assessments. Once a system is designated as a SIRPS, the operator becomes subject to expanded supervisory obligations beyond the general requirements of the Payment Systems Act. Enhanced Supervisory Requirements SIRPS operators must comply with a heightened supervisory regime across three key areas, outlined below. 1. Governance SIRPS operators must maintain robust and transparent governance structures, including: Balanced board composition, with at least one-third of the board comprising independent directors who represent stakeholders in the system (such as payment service providers, consumers, and experts). Independent directors may serve for no more than two consecutive terms. Subcommittees to assist the board in overseeing compliance, policy implementation, and operational strategy. Clear separation between executives responsible for risk and information security and those overseeing day-to-day business operations. Risk Management and System SecuritySIRPS operators must implement comprehensive risk management frameworks, including: Clear service agreements between the SIRPS operator and its direct participants (payment service providers who connect directly to the SIRPS), defining roles and responsibilities among stakeholders. These agreements must include obligations for direct SIRPS participants to supervise any indirect participants they onboard to ensure compliance with service agreements and business rules. A business continuity plan covering both IT and non-IT aspects, with annual review. The SIRPS must target service availability comparable to international payment infrastructures, including the ability to recover operations within two hours of a disruption and to maintain scalable operational capacity. Tools and controls to monitor and manage material or
Read More