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

September 24, 2024

Vietnam Releases First Draft of New Personal Data Protection Law

Subscribe to Updates

On September 24, 2024, the government of Vietnam issued the first draft of a new Law on Personal Data Protection (“Draft PDPL”). As foreshadowed in our previous legal update, the Ministry of Public Security has been very active in developing this draft law. With this draft, they promise to continue their considerable efforts to establish a robust personal data protection culture in Vietnam, as the Draft PDPL indicates a tentative entry into force on January 1, 2026.

With a tentative adoption by the National Assembly in May 2025, the Draft PDPL does not include any transition period, save for micro-enterprises, SMEs, and startups, which are only exempted from appointing a data protection department in their first two years of existence, while the timeline to comply with other obligations under the PDPL remains the same as for other enterprises.

The Draft PDPL includes 68 articles, divided into seven chapters, making it more extensive than last year’s Decree No. 13/2023/ND-CP on Personal Data Protection (“PDPD”), and expressly addresses personal data protection in many fields, including marketing services, behavioral advertising, big-data processing, AI, cloud computing, labor monitoring and recruitment, financial and credit information, health and insurance, and others.

It remains unclear how the PDPL will interact with the PDPD (whether it will replace its predecessor or coexist with it), although the Draft PDPL provides that it will prevail over any laws that have provisions on personal data protection that differ from the provisions of the PDPL.

Among the important new developments of the Draft PDPL when compared to the PDPD, we note:

  • Consent remains the main legal basis for processing, with limited exceptions (still not including “legitimate interest”). However, consent for cross-border transfer is further regulated under the Draft PDPL, including for intra-group sharing.
  • Data processing impact assessment dossiers for controllers and processors (“DPIA”) and transfer impact assessment for transferors (“TIA”) are retained, but, for the latter, the cases of transfer of personal data abroad have been further defined. These DPIAs and TIAs will have to be updated and submitted again to the authorities every six months or immediately upon material change.
  • New definitions have been inserted, such as “developers”, “personal data protection organization”, “personal data protection expert”, “de-identification of personal data”, “use of personal data for marketing”, “use of personal data for behavioral advertising”, and “personal data protection credit rating”, and other definitions currently found in the PDPD have been modified (e.g., land use right-related information has been included as “sensitive information”).
  • A data protection department must be appointed for basic personal data processing (it is no longer limited to sensitive personal data processing) and the Draft PDPL includes a recognition that a data protection department can be an external service provider (i.e., a personal data protection organization). The Draft PDPL further regulates this new service.
  • Certification mechanisms are introduced as credit ratings for personal data protection (high credibility, trust, pass, failing).
  • The 72-hour timeline to address certain data subjects’ requests and to notify the authorities in case of violation of the personal data protection regulations remains unchanged.

We will publish a deeper dive into the Draft PDPL shortly to provide you with more information on this new draft and draw comparisons with the PDPD, which was just enacted last year. [EDIT: Please see “Vietnam’s Draft Personal Data Protection Law: An In-Depth Look.”] Businesses are strongly encouraged to continue monitoring the development of this new legislation for preparation and to provide comments during the public consultation phase, which is open until November 24, 2024.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
February 26, 2026
Thailand is preparing to offer new tools for intellectual property enforcement as the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) recently released for public consultation a draft notification requiring social media platforms to verify user identities and conduct know-your-customer (KYC) checks on advertisers. The draft Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers, which is to be issued under the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes B.E. 2566 (2023), as amended in 2025, primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes. However, its new obligations also provide IP owners with valuable tools to identify anonymous infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The draft notification imposes several verification requirements on social media platforms operating in Thailand. These requirements also strengthen IP rights holders’ ability to identify anonymous infringers, as platforms must: Verify user identities through registered phone numbers and link all accounts to verifiable identities. Conduct KYC checks on advertisers, including individuals, companies, and any third-party payers. Perform heightened identity checks for high-risk or repeat offenders before publishing advertisements. Promptly remove content flagged by the Anti-Technology Crime Division and prescreen advertisements for prohibited or high-risk content. How IP Owners Can Use This Notification for Enforcement The phone number–based verification requirement enables IP owners to work more effectively with enforcement authorities in tracing individuals or entities responsible for infringing content. The comprehensive advertiser KYC obligations, including mandatory disclosure of third-party payment sources, create a clear audit trail even when bad actors attempt to obscure their identity through intermediaries or shell accounts. This traceability is essential for pursuing damages and dismantling organized counterfeit operations. The ETDA is now considering adjustments to the draft notification after receiving comments during the public consultation period, which ended on February 2, 2026. Following finalization
Read More
February 23, 2026
On February 17, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) released its draft Guidelines on Personal Data Protection in the Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence. The draft guidelines, which translate data controller and data processor compliance obligations under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) into measures tailored to AI development and deployment, are open for public comment until February 25, 2026. At a public hearing session on the draft guidelines held on February 19, the PDPC emphasized that its approach to AI is not to hinder innovation but to develop practical guidance supporting safe deployment while ensuring data protection. Although the guidelines are not legally binding, they indicate the regulator’s expectations and the likely direction of interpretation and enforcement. Scope of Application and Role of Stakeholders The guidelines will apply to all data controllers and data processors in Thailand, and to overseas data controllers and data processors whose data processing falls within the extraterritorial scope of the PDPA. The draft guidelines distinguish the roles of parties involved in AI deployment. Users of AI who determine the purpose of use and designate the input data, and retain outputs generated by the AI, are considered data controllers. In contrast, AI model providers or system integrators that process personal data under the instructions of the data controller are generally regarded as data processors. However, if an AI model provider utilizes user data for its own purposes, such as model fine-tuning or training, it may instead be classified as a data controller. Key Obligations for AI Data Collection and Use The basic principles of data processing under the PDPA must be maintained throughout the AI implementation lifecycle, from design to decommissioning, emphasizing accountability and privacy-by-design principles. The draft guidelines also stipulate the following: Data processing agreements (DPAs) should include model training prohibitions,
Read More