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​ 

June 17, 2026
Thailand’s new labeling requirements for medical devices, which include for the first time a unique device identification (UDI) requirement for software as a medical device (SaMD), take effect on June 20, 2026. The Notification of the Ministry of Public Health regarding Criteria, Methods, and Conditions on Labeling and Instructions for Use for Medical Devices 2025, which replaces a similar notification from 2020, was published in the Government Gazette on December 22, 2025. To ensure clarity, modernity, and patient safety, the regulation requires domestic manufacturers and importers to provide labels and instructions for use (IFU) that are clearly legible, complete, and free of false or misleading claims. It also permits IFU to be provided in electronic format, such as via QR codes, websites, or other digital channels—directly relevant to SaMD, where physical labels are impractical and electronic presentation is the natural medium. The notification distinguishes two categories for labeling language. Home-use medical devices (for lay users outside healthcare facilities) must have labels and IFU in Thai. Professional-use medical devices may display labels and documentation in either Thai or English. This distinction is significant for SaMD developers: software intended for clinical professionals may use English-language interfaces and IFU, while consumer-facing health applications must provide Thai-language content. Labeling and UDI Requirements Labels and IFU must include, at a minimum: Product name and intended purpose Quantity or volume Name and address of domestic manufacturer or importer Thai FDA approval number Lot, version, or serial number Manufacturing date and expiry date For SaMD, the version number requirement is particularly relevant. The regulation also mandates display of a UDI code for SaMD in risk category 2 (moderate-risk), category 3 (moderate- to high-risk), and category 4 (high-risk), according to Thailand’s medical device risk classification system (which complies with the ASEAN Medical Device Directive and the EU
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 11, 2026
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) has released a revised draft Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) for public hearing from May 12, 2026, to June 15, 2026. This is not merely an amendment to certain provisions of the current ETA, but a comprehensive redrafting of the entire act. The revised draft ETA introduces several significant changes from the current framework, with practical implications for businesses operating in Thailand. Unified Coverage of Public and Private Sectors The current law segregates government transactions into a separate chapter with distinct rules. The draft ETA eliminates this division, defining “transaction” to encompass civil and commercial juristic acts as well as administrative procedures, administrative contracts, and other acts of government agencies. Enhanced E-Signature Definition The definition of “electronic signature” is broadened to expressly include biometric data and refocused on identifying the signatory and demonstrating intent regarding the content of the electronic data. Shift in Burden of Proof When a party challenges the reliability of electronic data created using a “trusted electronic method” or a method prescribed by the ETDA, the burden of proof and the cost of proving unreliability shifts to the challenger. Introduction of New Digital Method Concepts The draft ETA introduces several new digital method concepts that are not currently recognized under the existing ETA framework. These include: Electronic timestamping (e-timestamp) Electronic registered delivery Electronic company seals Electronic stamp duty compliance Electronic identity authentication and verification Electronic transferable records (electronic bills of lading, promissory notes, and similar negotiable instruments) Recognition of Automated Systems and Electronic Contracting The draft ETA expressly recognizes the legal validity and enforceability of contracts formed through automated systems, including contracts concluded entirely between automated systems or between an automated system and a person. A party may not deny the binding effect of such contracts solely because no human review
Read More
June 5, 2026
Vietnam’s AI regulatory framework has reached an important milestone. While the Law on Artificial Intelligence No. 134/2025/QH15 (AI Law) established the foundation for AI governance, many practical compliance requirements were left to implementing regulations. On April 30, 2026, the government issued Decree No. 142/2026/ND-CP (Decree 142), which took effect on May 1, 2026, and provides the first detailed guidance on the implementation of the AI Law. Although an official list of high-risk AI systems is still pending from the prime minister, Decree 142 provides valuable insight into how Vietnam’s risk-based AI regulatory framework will operate in practice. Risk Classification Framework The AI Law adopts a risk-based approach under which AI systems are classified as high-risk, medium-risk, or low-risk. Decree 142 builds on this framework by providing detailed guidance on how these classifications are determined. High-risk AI systems are determined based on factors such as (i) their potential impact on life, health, property, human rights, public interests, or national security; (ii) the sector in which they are deployed; and (iii) the scale of affected users or integration with critical infrastructure. The latest draft list of high-risk AI systems appears to follow these same principles. Medium-risk AI systems generally include systems that may mislead, influence, or manipulate users, particularly where users may not realize they are interacting with AI or AI-generated content. The focus is therefore on transparency and authenticity risks rather than broader societal or safety concerns. Low-risk AI systems are those that do not meet the criteria for either high-risk or medium-risk classification. Importantly, Decree 142 seeks to avoid over-classification. Certain systems may fall outside the high-risk or medium-risk regimes, including internal-use systems, office-support tools, technical editing applications, certain back-end processing systems, and AI systems used in artistic, gaming, cinematic, or other creative contexts. Providers must also review and
Read More